Case Number: MC024445    Hearing Date: October 21, 2014    Dept: A11

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

JOE HERNANDEZ, III, )
) Case Number MC024445
Plaintiff, )
) ORDER AFTER HEARING
V )
) Date of Hearing:
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, et al., ) October 21, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendants. ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
____________________________________)

The demurrer of Defendant State of California, acting through California State Prison – Los Angeles County, State of California Prison Industry Authority, John Soto, Rudy Ramiro, Mike Torres, Lorena Beffa, and Martin Acosta to the Complaint came on for hearing on October 21, 2014. Plaintiff Joe Hernandez, III, appeared through his counsel of record ________________. Defendant appeared through its counsel of record, ___________________________.

The Court, having received and reviewed the pleadings of record and evidence submitted and having considered argument of counsel, hereby ORDERS:

The demurrer of Defendants is SUSTAINED with leave to amend through November 11, 2014.

SO ORDERED this the _____ day of October, 2014.

______________________
RANDOLPH ROGERS,
JUDGE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

JOE HERNANDEZ, III, )
) Case Number MC024445
Plaintiff, )
) STATEMENT OF DECISION
V )
) Date of Hearing:
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, et al., ) October 21, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendants. ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
____________________________________)

The Court bases the Order After Hearing of this date upon the following Statement of Decision:

1. The present case arises out of an accident injuring Plaintiff Joe Hernandez III (“Plaintiff”) while he was assigned to carry out specific work. Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. On April 9, 2013, Plaintiff, as an inmate employee, was ordered to transport several chemical drums onto pallets. While doing this, Plaintiff’s grip slipped and the drum smashed Plaintiff’s left hand, leading to permanent damage.

2. Plaintiff had previously informed his work supervisors, Defendants Rudy Ramiro, Mike Torres, Loren Beffa, and Martin Acosta that the drums were extremely heavy and he needed assistance in moving them. In addition, on April 8, 2014, Plaintiff had requested from his leadman new leather gloves.

3. Plaintiff filed suit on March 25, 2014 alleging negligence and wrongful conduct against individual defendants, and negligence based on vicarious liability against the institutional defendants.

4. Defendants filed a Demurrer on September 11, 2014, contending that (a) entity defendants are not liable due to immunity; (b) individual defendants are not liable due to the exclusive remedy of worker’s compensation; and (c) defendant John Soto is not liable as Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to establish a duty owed by Soto to Plaintiff.

5. Plaintiff served his untimely Opposition by mail on October 6, 2014, which was filed with the Court on October 9, 2014. Plaintiff contends that as to entity defendants, liability falls within the exceptions under Government Code §844.6. As to individual defendants, Plaintiff argues that each employee owed Plaintiff a direct duty, and their negligence thereof exposes them to liability. Finally, Plaintiff argues that Soto is personally liable to Plaintiff for failing to manage the personnel under his administration.

6. Standard for ruling on demurrer – The grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30(a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318. Concerning the legal sufficiency of a pleading, the sole issue on demurrer is whether the facts pleaded, if true, state a valid cause of action – i.e., if the complaint pleads facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Limandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 339.

7. A general demurrer admits the truth of all factual, material allegations properly pleaded in the challenged pleading, regardless of possible difficulties of proof. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318. Thus, no matter how unlikely or improbable, plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604. Nevertheless, this rule does not apply to allegations expressing mere conclusions of law, or allegations contradicted by the exhibits to the complaint or by matters of which judicial notice may be taken. Vance v. Villa Park Mobilehome Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 698, 709. A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318.

8. An amended complaint that omits harmful factual allegations from a previous complaint, whether verified or unverified, without an adequate explanation for the discrepancy is regarded as a sham pleading. A court ruling on a demurrer may take judicial notice of facts alleged in a prior complaint that reveal a defect in an amended complaint, and may disregard any inconsistent allegations in the amended complaint. State ex rel. Metz v. CCC Information Services, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 402, 412; see Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408, 425-26.

9. Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e) and (f), the party against whom a complaint has been filed may object by demurrer to the pleading on the grounds that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or that the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous and/or unintelligible. It is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer if there is a reasonable probability that the defect can be cured by amendment. Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1082. The burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate how the complaint can be amended to state a valid cause of action. Id.

10. Worker’s Compensation as Exclusive Remedy – At the outset, it should be noted that Plaintiff is correct in noting that the immunity provisions of Government Code §844.6 specifically except worker’s compensation claims. Cal. Gov. Code §844.6(a) (referring to Cal. Gov. Code §814.2). As such, Defendants’ blanket assertion that §844.6 gives it immunity is inapplicable.

11. However, Plaintiff is clearly mistaken in asserting that the public entity defendants are liable to it as a result. Labor Code §3370 sets forth the conditions governing Worker’s Compensation as applied to an inmate of a state penal or correctional institution. The Complaint readily admits that Plaintiff is such a person. Complaint at ¶3. The Code specifically notes that worker’s compensation benefits apply to “injury arising out of and in the course of assigned employment.” Cal. Lab. Code §3370(a). The Complaint also readily concedes that the work here was while Plaintiff was employed as an inmate employee and doing assigned work. Complaint at ¶¶16, 22.

12. In relying on the exception provided by Government Code §844.6 in reference to Government Code §814.2, Plaintiff fails to take into consideration Labor Code §3370(a)(9), which notes expressly that those provisions “shall be the exclusive remedy against the state for injuries occurring while engaged in assigned work.” (emphasis added). The unambiguous language of the statute clearly establishes that Plaintiff, as against the state, may only recover under worker’s compensation.

13. As such, the only liability can arise against the state for the injury complained of by Plaintiff is one brought within the worker’s compensation system.

14. Further, as relates to individual employees, and in light of the applicability of worker’s compensation laws to inmates, Plaintiff also cannot state a case.

15. Labor Code §3601 provides for liability of other employees to a ‘fellow employee’ under worker’s compensation. Subdivision (a) notes that for injuries arising out of employment, worker’s compensation is “the exclusive remedy for injury . . . of an employee against any other employee of the employer acting within the scope of his or her employment.” The only exceptions to this are where there is injury or death resulting from “willful and unprovoked physical act of aggression” or from “intoxication of the other employee.” Id. at subd. (a)(1) and (a)(2).

16. The acts complained of by Plaintiff as to the individual defendants relate specifically to their duties as employees of the state, including the monitoring of workplace conditions and the securing of tools for the conduct of work assigned to employees. As such, Plaintiff’s claims fall squarely under §3601, and his exclusive remedy is worker’s compensation.

17. Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend through November 11, 2014.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the ______ day of October, 2014.

_____________________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS, JUDGE