17-CIV-04060 WILLIAM PRATT VS. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ET AL.

WILLIAM PRATT MICHAEL E. ADAMS

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO JENNIFER STALZER KRASKE

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SAN MATEO’S DEMURRER

· SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendants County of San Mateo’s and Deputy Sheriff J. Piper’s Demurrer to Complaint is Sustained With Leave To Amend. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within 20 days of this Order.

· This is a personal injury case that arises out of an auto/bicycle collision in Redwood City in early January 2018. By his Complaint, Plaintiff William Pratt asserts two causes of action: (1) Intentional Torts and (2)Negligence. The basic gist of his claims is that Sheriff’s Deputies used unlawful excessive force by assaulting or recklessly ramming Mr. Pratt, who was riding his bicycle, with their patrol car in an effort to detain him.

· In the Court’s opinion, Plaintiff is attempting to state claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, and negligence. However, the Complaint falls short of the mark in doing so.

· On the Plaintiff’s threshold objection that no Meet & Confer has been done, the Court finds adequate compliance with CCP, Section 430.41. In the County’s Reply brief, Defense Counsel Jennifer Kraske states that a January 5, 2018 phone conference with Plaintiff’s Counsel included discussion of the current pleading’s “factual deficiencies” and it is clear that a follow-up email expressly afforded the option for a voluntary amendment of pleadings that could have rendered demurrer un-needed.

· On the merits, the Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to allege additional facts supporting each of the asserted claims. See CACI 1300 (battery); CACI 1301 (assault); CACI 1301 (false imprisonment).

· As Defendants’ note, although the Complaint alleges that Defendants’ vehicle struck Plaintiff’s bicycle, it does not allege any facts suggesting Defendants’ conduct was unlawful or improper given their position as law enforcement officers.

· In his Opposition, Plaintiff recites facts that are not alleged in the Complaint’s First Cause of Action, namely, that he was “riding his bicycle normally and posed no danger to anyone,” and that even if “the Deputies had reasonable cause to detain Plaintiff, they deliberately resorted to excessive force to do so” … “Plaintiff was immobilized by the Deputies as well as by his own injuries until later transported by ambulance to a hospital.” None of these allegations appear in the Complaint. The supporting facts must be alleged in the Complaint, not in an Opposition to a Demurrer.

· The Second Cause of Action for motor vehicle negligence is similarly vague as to the precise factual basis for the claim.

· If the Tentative Ruling is uncontested, it shall stand as the Court’s decision. Moving party’s Counsel is directed to prepare a written Order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and to provide notice thereof to the opposing party/counsel as required by law and the California Rules of Court. The Order is to be submitted directly to Judge Gerald J. Buchwald, Department 10.