Emerson v. City of Los Angeles CA2/2

Filed 3/18/26 Emerson v. City of Los Angeles CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

ALISHA EMERSON, B340933

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 24STCV00801 v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Barbara Ann Meiers, Judge. Affirmed.

Alisha Emerson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Attorney, Denise C. Mills, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Shaun Dabby Jacobs, Assistant City Attorney, and Sara Ugaz, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. ______________________________

Plaintiff Alisha Emerson, in propria persona, appeals the trial court’s judgment of dismissal with prejudice following its order striking her entire action or, alternatively, granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant City of Los Angeles (the City). The dismissal was based on Emerson’s failure to present a claim to the City before filing suit. (See Gov. Code, § 945.4; undesignated statutory designations are to this code.) Emerson fails to show reversible error and we therefore affirm. BACKGROUND Emerson, in propria persona, sued the City on January 11, 2024. In her initial handwritten complaint, she alleged the City had breached a settlement the parties had reached in her previous “labor lawsuit” against the City and the Los Angeles Police Department. She also alleged City employees had intentionally caused her emotional distress through various wrongful acts. Five days later, Emerson filed a handwritten “Amended Complaint” or “Amended Supplemental Complaint,” which contained more factual allegations than the initial complaint but did not refer to any causes of action. On July 8, 2024, Emerson filed a typewritten document entitled “Motion for First Amended Complaint” or “Motion to Amend Complaint.” It was in the form of a complaint, not a motion to amend.1 It listed the following purported causes of