JEFF OSUNA; ET AL. vs. RIVER DELTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; ET AL.

Case No. CU24-09522

Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint; Motion to Strike Portions of Third Amended Complaint

Demurrer

Defendants’ unopposed demurrer to the third amended complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

“[S]tates and state officers sued in their official capacity are not considered persons under section 1983 and are immune from liability under the statute by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” (Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829, italics in original.) A California school district is considered an arm of the state for purposes of the 11th Amendment and shares the State’s immunity from suit under section 1983. (Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified Sch. Dist. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1115.) When an entity enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity under section 1983 in federal court, it enjoys the immunity in state court as well. (Id. at 1103-1104.) This Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to suits against states for failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Bd. of Trs. v. Garrett (2001) 531 U.S. 356, 360.)

All of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants are barred. Defendant River Delta Unified School District is an arm of the state for purposes of the 11th Amendment and Defendants Wright, Lamera, and Cornelson have been sued in their official capacities. To the extent that Plaintiffs intended to sue Defendants Wright, Lamera, or Cornelson in their individual capacities, Plaintiffs have not alleged any conduct performed outside of their official capacities that might allow for personal liability.

Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing “in what manner [they] can amend [their] complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of [their] pleading.” (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349; Cooper v. Equity Gen. Ins. (1990)

219 Cal.App.3d 1252, 1263-1264; McMartin v. Childrens’ Inst. Int’l (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1393, 1408.)

Motion to Strike

In light of the court’s ruling on the demurrer, the motion to strike is moot.

NORMAN ROSS DEYOUNG vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, MEDICAL INC.; ET AL.