Case Name: Baez v. Sacramento Funeral Bureau, et al.
Case No.: 19CV344742

On March 13, 2019, plaintiff David Baez (“Plaintiff”) filed a form complaint. The complaint states that Plaintiff alleges causes of action against Harmonie Theriault and John Fernando Valencia. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff is “DECEASED.” As it is unlikely that the deceased Plaintiff actually filed the complaint, it appears that the complaint may have been filed by Plaintiff’s presumably living brother, Raymond Baez. As to the listed defendants, the complaint names “HarmTheriault,” “GroupXII Prop LP,” “Midland Funding,” and “John Fernando Valencia.” (Complaint, ¶ 5.) There are no allegations regarding any Doe defendants. (See complaint, ¶ 6.) In the complaint’s allegations regarding the damages claimed for wrongful death and the relationships of plaintiff to the deceased are “RAYMOND BAEZ SIBLING, TERESA BAEZ MOTHER[,] DAVID BAEZ SR FATHER[,] CHILDREN OF DAVID BAEZ[:] MARISSA BAEZ DAUGHTER [,] DAVID JAKOB BAEZ SON[,] LEIGHLANI BAEZ DAUGHTER.” (Complaint, ¶ 12.) The complaint alleges that “[t]he relief sought in this complaint is within the jurisdiction of th[e] court [of] NORTH DISTRICT 1 CHICAGO COOK COUNTY.” (Complaint, ¶ 13.) Other than the caption, the complaint is devoid of any allegations regarding Sacramento Funeral Bureau. The complaint seeks damages in the amount of $2,241,975. (See complaint, ¶ 14.) Defendant California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau, which believes that it was erroneously sued as Sacramento Funeral Bureau, demurs to the complaint on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against it, and that Plaintiff is not the real party in interest.

Bureau requests judicial notice of: Plaintiff’s death certificate; an October 18, 2017 complaint regarding about a funeral at Chapel of the Valley in Palmdale; the record of Plaintiff’s failure to file a government claim as to Bureau; and, the complaint. The request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452, subds. (c), (d), (h); see also Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 376 (stating that “[i]f a plaintiff alleges compliance with the claims presentation requirement, but the public records do not reflect compliance, the governmental entity can request the court to take judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c) that the entity’s records do not show compliance”).)

Here, it is clear that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau (“Bureau”) because the complaint does not even allege Bureau’s correct name, much less any facts supporting a cause of action against it. The demurrer to the complaint is SUSTAINED on to this ground.

Bureau also argues that Plaintiff cannot state a viable cause of action because it is a state agency and the complaint does not allege any facts regarding the presentation of a claim to it. As Bureau argues, the California Tort Claims Act “establishes certain conditions precedent to the filing of a lawsuit against a public entity.” (State of California v. Super. Ct. (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1237 (hereinafter, “Bodde”).) “As relevant here, a plaintiff must timely file a claim for money or damages with the public entity.” (Id., citing Gov. Code § 911.2.) Section 911.2 states that “[a] claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” (Gov. Code § 911.2, subd. (a).) “[F]ailure to timely present a claim for money or damages to a public entity bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity.” (Bodde, supra, 32 Cal. 4th at p.1239.) “[F]ailure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action.” (Id.; see also Wood v. Riverside General Hospital (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119 (stating that “[t]he timely filing of a claim is an essential element of a cause of action against a public entity and failure to allege compliance with the claims statute renders the complaint subject to general demurrer”).) Here, the complaint fails to allege any facts regarding claims presentation. In opposition, Plaintiff—or rather, the brother of the deceased plaintiff—does not address his failure to present any claim to Bureau. Instead, his opposition merely argues that the Court should overrule the demurrer because there is a confidential relationship that existed between either Plaintiff or him and Bureau, and civil conspiracy is a recognized cause of action. The opposition also attaches Plaintiff’s death certificate, which indicates that Plaintiff died of gastrointestinal bleeding and alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver on August 7, 2017, photographs, a June 26, 2017 text message, a prehospital care report summary of August 7, 2017, an October 24, 2017 email from Sergeant John P. O’Brien, and an unrelated pleading from 2009. Plaintiff’s opposition appears to be discussing an entirely different complaint because the complaint neither references a fiduciary or confidential relationship, nor a civil conspiracy cause of action. Plaintiff does not demonstrate that he has facts suggesting that he has timely presented his claim to Bureau. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (stating that “Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading”), quoting Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627, 636; see also Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723, 742 (stating that “the burden is on the plaintiff… to demonstrate the manner in which the complaint might be amended”).) In fact, Plaintiff has not requested leave to amend the complaint. The demurrer to the complaint on this ground is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Bureau also demurs to the complaint on the ground that the deceased Plaintiff is not the real party in interest. As both parties acknowledge, Plaintiff is deceased. The complaint does not state that it is being brought by Plaintiff’s estate, personal representative, or successor in interest, as required. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 377.30.) The opposition does not address this argument either. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (stating that “Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading”), quoting Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627, 636; see also Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723, 742 (stating that “the burden is on the plaintiff… to demonstrate the manner in which the complaint might be amended”).) Accordingly, the demurrer to the complaint is also SUSTAINED without leave to amend on this ground.

Bureau also demurs to the complaint on the ground that it cannot state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because, to the extent that the complaint is premised on Bureau’s authority to license and regulate providers of cemetery and funeral services, such a claim is barred by the absolute immunity for licensing pursuant to Government Code section 818.4. The opposition does not address this argument. Here, the complaint does not allege any facts regarding licensing or Bureau. Thus, any such argument as to any basis for liability against Bureau is speculative. As the Court is sustaining the demurrer to the complaint on other grounds, it is unnecessary to address this possible but unpled basis for Bureau’s liability.

Plaintiff also requests entry of default against Bureau in the amount of $2,241,975. The request is DENIED and the request to enter default is STRICKEN.

After compliance with Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, Defendant shall submit a proposed judgment.

The Court will prepare the Order.