Case Number: SC121760    Hearing Date: August 04, 2014    Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING – DEPT. P

AUG. 4, 2014 CALENDAR No: 4

SC121760 — GRIN v. HOUSING AUTHOR. S.M., et al.

DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

The FAC at bar, filed by Plaintiff in propria persona, alleges fourteen causes of action, all arising from the City’s decision to terminate Plaintiff’s Section 8 housing benefits. The City has demurred to the FAC in its entirety, on a variety of grounds.

Defendants properly served Plaintiff with the motion at bar by mail. Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to oppose the motion. That is Plaintiff’s obligation., It is not the Court’s function to act as Plaintiff’s “back-up” counsel. Indeed: “There is neither reason nor justification for compelling a trial judge to act as a sort of advisory or ‘backup’ counsel.” Gagosian v. Burdick’s Television and Appliances (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 316, 318. This is true notwithstanding Plaintiff is representing herself; a litigant who decides to appear in propria persona “is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys.” Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638; accord, Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 193.

In any event, the demurrer has merit:

Even ignoring the fact that Plaintiff previously filed a still-pending writ petition against the City challenging its decision to terminate Plaintiff’s Section 8 housing benefits, the FAC is fatally flawed. As is explained in the moving brief, among other defects, Plaintiff has impermissibly alleged common-law theories of liability against the City, and has not alleged compliance with the claims-filing requirements of the Government Claims Act (aka the Tort Claims Act). As to the former point, see, e.g., Gov. Code § 815(a) (“Except as otherwise provided by statute: [¶¶][a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person”) and Odello Bros. v. County of Monterey (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 778, 792 (under the Tort Claims Act, a public entity may be held liable only if a statute declares that it may). As to the latter point, see, e.g., Stockett v. Association of Cal. Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Authority (2004) 34 Cal.4th 441, 445 (Gov. Code Section 945.4 provides that “‘no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with … [s]ection 910 … until a written claim therefor[e] has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the [public entity’s] board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board…'”).

Plaintiff has not shown that she can validly amend her FAC to allege any claim against the City. It is her burden to do so. Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (“Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading”); Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723, 742. Accordingly, sustaining the demurrer to the FAC without leave to amend is appropriate.

Demurrers to all fourteen causes of action are sustained without leave to amend. The City is to serve and lodge a proposed order pursuant to CRC 3.1312. It is to concurrently serve and lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal.

NOTICE

The City shall give notice of today’s rulings and orders and timely file proof of service thereof, pursuant to CCP 1019.5 and CRC 3.1312.