Sevilla v. L.A. Community College Dist. CA2/8

Filed 1/23/26 Sevilla v. L.A. Community College Dist. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

JOSE SEVILLA, B344386

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 24STCV09332 v.

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order and judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Barbara A. Meiers, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. Jose Sevilla, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Reily & Jeffery and Janine K. Jeffrey for Defendants and Respondents. ____________________

Representing himself, Jose Sevilla sued various defendants connected to a community college program, complaining of the conduct of a staff member. The defendants demurred, and the trial court granted Sevilla leave to amend his complaint. Sevilla filed a first amended complaint against Elyzandro Umana and East Los Angeles College Rising Scholars. He later filed a declaration saying he meant to name the Los Angeles Community College District and Elizandro Umana as defendants. In his amended complaint, Sevilla alleged he “first met Defendant Elyzandro Umana while working at Homeboy Industries. During this time, Plaintiff faced discriminatory practices, prompting him to file a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which issued a Right to Sue letter.” Sevilla’s amended complaint asserted five claims based on his exclusion from a federal work study program by Umana. The first claim alleged discrimination in violation of state and federal law. This count specifically named the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). The second count alleged retaliation in violation of those same laws. The third claim is for harassment in violation of the same laws. The fourth claim is for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The fifth claim is for breach of contract. We refer to the fourth and fifth claims as the “non-FEHA” claims. The defendants again demurred. A minute order from January 24, 2025 stated, in relevant part: “All parties concurring that plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of the Government Tort Claims Act and plaintiff having failed to allege any such compliance, aside from all other grounds stated in the