Xia vs. Placentia Yorba Linda Unified School District

Complaint did not name the District Board Members as Defendants. (See ROA 2 [Complaint].)

“It is the rule that when a trial court sustains a demurrer with leave to amend, the scope of the grant of leave is ordinarily a limited one. It gives the pleader an opportunity to cure the defects in the particular causes of action to which the demurrer was sustained, but that is all.” (Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Com. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329.) The limited scope of amendment granted by the court on October 22, 2024 does not permit Plaintiffs to add the District Board Members as Defendants or to assert causes of action against them. (See ROA 88.) The motion to strike is granted as to the District Board Members.

Moving Defendants to give notice. ______________________________________________________________

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Defendants Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District, Shawn Youngblood, Karin Freeman, Carrie Buck, and Marilyn Freeman’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Ye Yin Stella Xia and Aretha Li is SUSTAINED. Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is denied. The requested documents are not matters for which judicial notice is required or permitted. (See Evid. Code, §§ 451-452.)

In ruling on a demurrer, a court must accept as true all allegations of fact contained in the complaint. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the affected pleading, not the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading or the pleader’s ability to prove those allegations. (Cundiff v. GTE Cal., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404-05.)

In order to pursue a tort claim against a public entity or public employee under California state law, Plaintiffs must establish that they have complied with the claim presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act. (Gov. Code, §§ 945.4, 950.2.) “Before a civil action may be brought against a public entity [or public employee], a claim must first be presented to the public entity and rejected.” (Ocean Servs. Corp. v. Ventura Port District (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1762, 1775; Gov. Code, § 950.2.) “[F]ailure to timely present a claim for money or damages to a public entity bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity.” (City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 730, 738 [citation and internal quotations omitted].)

Compliance with the claims presentation requirement is an element of a plaintiff’s claim. (State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1243-44 [“Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is ... a condition precedent to plaintiff’s maintaining an action against defendant ... and thus an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action.”] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted].)

The Government Claims Act requires plaintiffs to file a written claim with the public entity within six months of the accrual of the cause of action, as a prerequisite to filing a civil claim. (Gov. Code, § 911.2.) The date of accrual is the date of the occurrence of the last fact essential to the cause of action. (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. City of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 815, as modified July 18, 2001.) Page 11 of 15

“The date of accrual of a cause of action marks the starting point for calculating the claims presentation period. [Citation.] The general rule for defining the accrual of a cause of action sets the date as the time when, under the substantive law, the wrongful act is done, or the wrongful result occurs, and the consequent liability arises. [Citation.] In other words, it sets the date as the time when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements [citations]—the elements being generically referred to by sets of terms such as wrongdoing or wrongful conduct, cause or causation, and harm or injury [citations]. [Citation.]

A cause of action accrues for purposes of the filing requirements of the Tort Claims Act on the same date a similar action against a nonpublic entity would be deemed to accrue for purposes of applying the relevant statute of limitations.” (K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School District (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1239, as modified (May 5, 2009) disapproved of on other grounds by Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1 (2017) 3 Cal.5th 903.)

The FAC alleges Plaintiff Li was berated as a “Spared [sic] Tire” by a group of Jazz 1 students and the band director did nothing to stop the bulling. (FAC ¶ 16, 72.) Plaintiff Li’s flute stand was stolen in December 2018. (Id. at ¶ 17.) On the morning of December 4, 2019, Plaintiff Li reported that her saxophone was missing. (Id. at ¶¶ 20, 74.) In late February 2020, Plaintiff Xia contacted the District’s administrative office. (Id. at ¶ 31.) Ms. Blade was assigned to handle the complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff Xia requested Ms. Blade to investigate a bullying incident, the theft of the flute stand, the theft of the saxophone, and the resistance of school employees to address Plaintiff Xia’s investigation request. (Id.) Ms. Blade provided Plaintiff Xia with the District’s summary investigation on June 9, 2020. (Id.) Plaintiff graduated from Valencia High School in June 2020. (Id. at ¶ 27.)

The FAC further alleges the District appointed individuals with a bis or conflict of interest to investigate Plaintiff Xia’s complaints in June 2020. (FAC ¶¶ 81-82.) Plaintiffs allege District Superintendents failed to act in accordance with their responsibility for the safety of Plaintiff Li and also acted with deliberate indifference in May 2021 and December 2022. (Id. at ¶¶ 91-92.) Plaintiffs filed a Claim for Damages with Risk Management at the District on November 30, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

To the extent Plaintiffs’ causes of action are based on the District’s alleged mishandling of the bullying of Plaintiff Li or the mishandling of Plaintiff Xia’s complaints from Fall 2017 through 2021, the claims are untimely. On the face of the FAC, such claims are barred because Plaintiffs failed to present a timely written claim to the District.

Plaintiffs contend their claims against the District may be equitably tolled. The doctrine of equitable tolling, however, “cannot be invoked to suspend [Government Code] section 911.2’s six-month deadline for filing a prerequisite government claim” because “the six-month period of section 911.2 is not a statute of limitations [citation] to which tolling rules might apply.” (Willis v. City of Carlsbad (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1104, 1121.) Furthermore, “[a]pplication of tolling to the claims presentation deadline would undercut the public policies and purposes that require that deadline be ‘strict[ly]’ applied.” (Id. at p. 1122.) The demurrer to the first, second, third, and fifth causes of action is sustained on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to file a timely government claim. Page 12 of 15

Should Plaintiffs desire to file an amended complaint that addresses Plaintiffs’ compliance with the Government Claims Act, Plaintiffs must file and serve it on or before June 19, 2026. The court reminds Plaintiffs that they may not amend the complaint to add a new cause of action without having obtained permission to do so, unless the new cause of action is within the scope of the order granting leave to amend.