Mike Bubalo Construction CO,. Inc vs. Yorba Linda Water District

and possesses no further power to reconsider or rehear the claim.” (Id. at 1309.)

As explained by this Court previously, allegations of requesting the same relief from the District itself does not meet the requisite showing that Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies. Plaintiffs must show they attempted to appeal the District decision to through the appropriate channels. Plaintiffs instead claim they repeatedly asked the District to change their mind about their own decision. (SAC, ¶¶ 66-77.) This is not an appeal. Further, this Court also previously explained failing to inform of the appellate rights was not sufficient to show the administrative procedure was effectively unavailable. (See Foster v.

Sexton (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 998, 1028.) Finally, Plaintiffs allegations do not fall within the exception to the exhaustion requirement due to improper screening. “For administrative remedies to be effectively unavailable due to improper screening, ‘the inmate must establish (1) that he actually filed a grievance or grievances that, if pursued through all levels of administrative appeals, would have sufficed to exhaust the claim that he seeks to pursue in ... court, and (2) that prison officials screened his grievance or grievances for reasons inconsistent with or unsupported by applicable regulations.’ ” (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs have not shown any attempts to appeal for the District to have interfered with.

Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the 2nd cause of action is sustained.

“A public employee acting in the scope of his employment is not liable for an injury caused by his misrepresentation, whether or not such misrepresentation be negligent or intentional, unless he is guilty of actual fraud, corruption or actual malice.” (§ 822.2.) “The immunity afforded by Government Code section 822.2 applies unless, in addition to the essentials of common law deceit, a public employee is motivated by corruption or actual malice, i.e., a conscious intent to deceive, vex, annoy or harm the injured party.” (Curcini v. County of Alameda (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 629, 649.) “In addition to facts establishing the ordinary elements of common law deceit, the pleader also must allege facts showing that the fraud was motivated by corruption or actual malice.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts to support their claim because they do not establish Afshar and Weston were motivated by actual malice or corruption. Plaintiffs plead a generic claim that Defendants knew of material facts but failed to disclose them. They have plead no facts regarding their motivations and ask the Court to infer the motivation based on the result. The Court declines to find an intent to injure merely because a party was injured.

Thus, Defendants’ demurrer to the 4th and 5th causes of action is sustained.

“The burden of showing a reasonable possibility that amendment can cure the defect in a complaint rests squarely on the plaintiff, who must

identify specific facts showing that the complaint can be amended to state a viable cause of action. But a court should deny leave to amend an initial complaint only rarely, when it appears conclusively that it is impossible to allege such facts.” (Amy's Kitchen, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1073.) Here, Plaintiffs have simply requested leave to amend.

Motion to Strike

Defendants Yorba Linda Water District, Reza Afshar, and Rosanne Weston’s Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) is granted in part and denied as moot in part.

Defendants’ requests to strike allegations within the 2nd, 4th, and 5th causes of action are denied as moot due to the Court sustaining the demurrer as to those causes of action.

Defendants’ requests to strike requests for relief in the prayer are granted because those requests rely on the causes of action subject to the demurrer.

Paragraphs 5, 6, and 15 of the SAC’s prayer for relief are ORDERED stricken. 14 24-01382884 Motion to Compel Production

Ortega vs. FCA US, LLC CONTINUED

15 25-01514073 Demurrer to Amended Complaint

River Street The general demurrer of defendant Salem Engineering Group, Inc., to all Marketplace LLC vs. seven causes of action in the first amended complaint of plaintiff River Salem Engineering Street Marketplace, LLC, is OVERRULED. Defendant is ordered to file Group, Inc. an answer to the FAC within 20 days.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.

Discussion. Defendant demurs to all seven causes of action in the plaintiff’s first amended complaint and asks for judicial notice of four documents from governmental sources that have no bearing on the issues presented in the moving papers. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

The first cause of action for breach of written contract. The first cause of action is for breach of the written contract that is attached to the FAC as Exhibit A. Defendant contends that this cause of action fails for several reasons, starting with an argument that the contract cannot be enforced because it is not signed by the parties. In fact, the agreement that is attached to the FAC as Exhibit A is not signed.

In support of its argument, defendant cites Banner Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 358. In that case, the court stated the following at pp. 357-358: