Case Number: 18LBCV00006 Hearing Date: September 19, 2019 Dept: S27

Defendant Ron Saxman demurs to the entirety of Plaintiff David Elias’ First Amended Complaint:

1. Negligence

2. Negligence Per Se

3. “Unruh Act”

4. Libel

5. Breach of Contract

6. Fraud

7. Specific Performance

8. Petition to Disbar

9. Declaratory Relief

10. “Restraint on Trade”

11. Breach of Contract

12. Unruh Act

13. 42 USC 1983

14. Due Process Violation

15. Unfair Business Practices

16. Injunctive Relief

17. Conversion

18. Negligent Hiring

19. Misappropriation of Likeness

20. IIED AND NIED

21. “Oppression”

22. Civil Rico

On June 13, 2019 the court sustained a demurrer by Defendant Carolyn Olson, an employee of Pacific Coast University (“PCU”) to the entire complaint with leave to amend certain causes of action and without leave to amend as to others. On June 25, 2019 the court sustained the demurrers of other PCU employees mostly without leave to amend, but with an opportunity to amend certain negligence based claims.

The basis, in part, for sustaining these prior demurrers was that the complaint was uncertain and unintelligible. The court repeats the following from its prior tentative ruling which applies with equal force to the present demurrer:

“As the court has repeatedly observed in ruling on previous demurrers to the 1st Amended Complaint, this pleading disregards many of the fundamental rules of pleading. CCP §425.10:

“(a) A complaint or cross-complaint shall contain both of the following:

(1) A statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.

(2) A demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader claims to be entitled. If the recovery of money or damages is demanded, the amount demanded shall be stated.”

The rambling complaint, far from containing ordinary and concise language, runs over 60 pages not counting the evidentiary material appended as exhibits. The complaint borders on unintelligible. The complaint is filled with legal citation and argument.

What can be ascertained is that Plaintiff was enrolled as a law student at Co-Defendant Pacific Coast University School of Law (“PCU”). He was eventually disqualified academically. He has a myriad of issues including:

1. He was required to take a course in real property but later learned he was exempt. The Dean allegedly concealed this fact fraudulently.

2. PCU discriminated against him because he is a “dark skinned Hispanic, a Christian, and a Male.”

3. After Plaintiff suffered a heart attack he was not accommodated.

4. “Professor Olson failed Plaintiff for personal vindictive reasons.”

5. His grades were unreasonably and improperly withheld, and he had not been informed he could challenge the grades.”

The present demurrer is by Ron Saxman who is not alleged to have directly played any part in grading Plaintiff or making any other decision with respect to his continued enrollment. Despite the length of the FAC, the only facts as to Saxman are that Olson told Plaintiff through letter that he would not get his Community Property (Prof. Saxman) grade card. (FAC, 44:1-5.)

These facts do not establish personal liability. To the extent Plaintiff attempts to allege conspiracy or agency theories the complaint is insufficient. Agents are not liable for the conduct of the agent’s principal. The only facts alleged do not establish an affirmative act by Saxman in furtherance of a conspiracy with his employer:

“A corporate employee cannot conspire with his or her corporate employer; that would be tantamount to a person conspiring with himself. Thus when a corporate employee acts in his or her authorized capacity on behalf of his or her corporate employer, there can be no claim of conspiracy between the corporate employer and the corporate employee.” (Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 55, 78.)

The court agrees that the demurrer can be sustained on the basis that the complaint is uncertain and unintelligible. The court also rules on the basis that the facts do not establish Saxman owed any duty, personally, to Plaintiff, and did not commit any conduct which would establish any intentional tort.

Plaintiff has not articulated any facts to support a viable amendment. Plaintiff only states that he is suing Saxman because he ignored Plaintiff’s requests to see his grade cards for Saxman’s community property class which he received a “D” in, which is not in compliance with “Bar Rule 2.7.”

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Saxman is ordered to lodge and serve a proposed judgment of dismissal.