Case Number: BC526006 Hearing Date: June 02, 2014 Dept: 46

Posted 5-30-2014 12:20 p.m.

Case Number: BC526006
LOS GLOBOS CORPORATION VS CITY OF LA ET AL
Filing Date: 10/28/2013
Case Type: Other Commercial/Business Tort (General Jurisdiction)

06/02/2014 at 08:31 am in department 46 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012

Unopposed demurrer to Complaint by City of Los Angeles, Frank Lara, Andrew Longoria, and Gerald Travens

TENTATIVE RULING: Demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

1st & 2nd Causes of Action (COA) for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (Respectively)

Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend pursuant to CCP §430.10(e).

Individual defendants are all public employees.

Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant’s interfered with an existing business relationship, that defendants engaged in an independently wrongful act, or that defendants owed it a duty of care. As these are necessary elements to the cause of action under Youst v. Longo (1987) 43 C.3d 64, 71, fn. 6, the demurrer is sustained pursuant to CCP §430.10(e).

Plaintiff has not alleged facts that indicate that Defendants are not immune from liability under Gov’t Code §§ 815.2, 818.4, 820.2 and 821.2. Section 818.4 states that:

“A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by the issuance,
denial, suspension or revocation of, or by the failure or refusal to
issue, deny, suspend or revoke, any permit, license, certificate,
approval, order, or similar authorization where the public entity or
an employee of the public entity is authorized by enactment to
determine whether or not such authorization should be issued,
denied, suspended or revoked.”

Section 821.2 confers the same immunity on public employees. Moreover, Section 820.2 provides that:

“…a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his
act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the
exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such
discretion be abused.”

Section 815.2(b) states that “a public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability.”

Plaintiff’s cause of action also fails because it seeks to impose liability on the acts of persons not described in its 3/21/13 “Claim for Damages.” Govt Code § 945.4 states that:

“Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, 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 Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and
Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this
division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the
public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has
been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance
with Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this division.”

Where there has been a ‘complete shift in allegations, usually involving an effort to premise civil liability on acts or omissions committed at different times or by different persons than those described in the claim,’ have courts generally found the complaint barred. (Blair v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 226).” Id. (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s “Claim for Damages” does not mention the Los Angeles Fire Department, the Los Angeles Police Commission, Travens, or any other employee of either entity as being responsible for its damages.

3rd COA: Negligence

Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend pursuant to CCP §430.10(e).

Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing the existence of any duty by the defendants or facts that show that Defendants are not subject to the immunity statutes stated above. Duty is a necessary element of actionable negligence. Seo v. All-Makes Overhead Doors (2002) 97 C.A.4th 1193, 1202.

4th COA: Declaratory Relief

Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend pursuant to CCP §430.10(e).

“’[While] an action for declaratory relief may properly test the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance (McCarthy v. City of Manhattan Beach (1953) 41 C.2d 879, 882; People v. Amdur (1954) 123 C.A.2d Supp. 951, 968), it is not an appropriate method for judicial review of administrative decisions (Hostetter v. Alderson (1952) 38 C.2d 499, 500).’ (Floresta, Inc. v. City Council (1961) 190 C.A.2d 599, 612).” Hill v. City of Manhattan Beach (1971) 6 C.3d 279, 287.