Emme v. Morr CA6

Filed 6/23/14 Emme v. Morr CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

RAYMOND EMME, H039562 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. CV174743)

v.

BONNIE MORR, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

In this appeal plaintiff Raymond Emme seeks review of two orders sustaining the demurrers to his first amended complaint without leave to amend. Representing himself on appeal (as he did in the proceedings below), plaintiff contends that he was not given a proper hearing on his tort and civil rights claims against the Santa Cruz Metropolitan District (the District) and some of its officials and employees. We must uphold the orders dismissing plaintiff's complaint, however, because he did not submit argument demonstrating that his pleading stated facts constituting viable causes of action. Background Because this appeal arises from the sustaining of a demurrer, we summarize the underlying facts as they are stated in the operative pleading, the first amended complaint. Toward this end "we accept as true the properly pleaded material factual allegations of the complaint, together with facts that may properly be judicially noticed." (Crowley v.

Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 672; Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125.) Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint in propria persona on October 31, 2012, asserting 12 claims against the District, three of its employees, and a union official.1 He alleged that the District was responsible for continual insults directed at him by District employees beginning in the 1980s. Plaintiff attempted to describe numerous events in which various employees, mostly bus drivers, insulted and ridiculed him with sexually charged names and crude gestures. The incidents plaintiff related took place from the 1980s through August or September of 2011. Much of the conduct he described was not attributed to any named defendant. He did relate how a woman plaintiff "believe[d]" to be defendant Bonnie Morr made sexual gestures while standing behind plaintiff; "this was in the late-1980s, early 1990s." Morr was allegedly liable for "conspiracy to slander," "procuring the breach of contract of carriage," negligent infliction of emotional distress, civil rights violations,2 and the "tort of gross insult." Fouse, a supervisor, had discussed plaintiff's sexuality in August or September 2011. He was liable for the same violations as Morr, with the addition of negligent supervision and training. Martinez had called plaintiff a disparaging name "back in the eighties." In "later years" when Martinez was a supervisor, he "quadrupled his efforts to vilify the plaintiff." Then, "about five years back," Martinez spotted plaintiff and again yelled out an insulting name. No other specific dates were attributed to Martinez's conduct other than "in later years." Similarly, Moreau had called plaintiff a disparaging name on July 13, 2011, but