Demurrer; Motion to Strike
Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 295, 313; Dill v. Barquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1436-1437.)
The court finds that Defendant has not met his burden of rebutting the presumption of proper service. As such, the motion is DENIED.
Defendant SHALL respond to the Complaint within 20 days.
Plaintiff to give notice.
11 Doe vs. Anaheim Demurrer Elementary School Motion to Strike District
1. Demurrer
The court SUSTAINS, with 5 days leave to amend, the unopposed demurrer by Defendant ANAHEIM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, regarding the third cause of action of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff JANE JI DOE, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, SHARLENE SANCHEZ.
The demurrer appears to be meritorious. Plaintiff’s third cause of action asserts Defendant failed to “properly warn, train, and/or educate their administrators, credentialed staff, and classified staff.” (Compl., ¶ 88.) As noted by Defendant, “a direct claim against a governmental entity asserting negligent hiring and supervision, when not grounded in the breach of a statutorily imposed duty owed by the entity to the injured party, may not be maintained.” (de Villers v. County of San Diego (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 238, 255-256.)
Similarly, while the third cause of action alleges a failure to properly warn, train, and educate students as to bullying (Compl., ¶¶ 85-87), schools do not have an actionable duty of care “in the discharge of their academic functions.” (Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified School District (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 814, 825.)
Finally, it is undisputed Plaintiff failed to specifically plead a statutory basis for the direct liability asserted within the third cause of action.
“[I]n California all government tort liability is dependent on the existence of an authorizing statute or ‘enactment’...and to state a cause of action every fact essential to the existence of statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity, including the existence of a statutory duty.” (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The court notes that Plaintiff filed a notice of nonopposition to the demurrer. (ROA 41.)
2. Motion to Strike
The court GRANTS the unopposed Motion to Strike brought by Defendant ANAHEIM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, to strike certain portions of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff JANE JI DOE, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, SHARLENE SANCHEZ. Five (5) days leave to amend is GRANTED.
The motion appears to be meritorious. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, the court may, upon a motion made pursuant to section 435 or at any time in its discretion, strike out “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or strike “out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a) and (b).)
The motion appears to be unmeritorious and Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the motion to strike. (ROA 39.)
Defendant to give notice.
And if Plaintiff does not file and serve an amended pleading within 5 days, then Defendant SHALL file and serve an Answer to the remaining portions of the Complaint by 9/14/26.
3. Upcoming CMC
The case is not at-issue. As such, the court CONTINUES the Case Management from 8/31/26 to 11/23/26, at 10:00 am in Dept. W8.
The court also DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause set for 8/31/26.
Plaintiff to give notice.
12 Run 2 Rescue vs. Demurrer Rabinovitch Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction
1. Demurrer
The court SUSTAINS, with 20 days leave to amend, Defendants FRANK B. RABINOVITCH, KAREN LYNN RABINOVITCH, and MFTDS, INC. dba MASTER FUNDING CO.’s demur to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff RUN 2 RESCUE.
Request for Judicial Notice: The court GRANTS Defendants unopposed request to take judicial notice of certain documents related – 1) Substitution of Trustee (“SOT”) recorded on 4/24/26 and 2) a screenshot of the Orange County assessor’s online tax records for the property at issue - 752 N. Creekview Drive, Orange, CA 92869 (the “Property”).
The Complaint asserts the following eight causes of action against moving defendants: 1) violation of California Civil Code § 2934a 2) breach of contract 3) slander of title 4) cancellation of instruments 5) accounting 6) violation of
16