Maderer v. City of Los Angeles CA2/1

Filed 4/29/16 Maderer v. City of Los Angeles CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

ROSHEA P. MADERER, B261168

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC539991) v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Holly E. Kendig, Judge. Affirmed. Roshea P. Maderer, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Richard M. Brown, General Counsel for Water and Power, and Robin O’Sullivan, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.

____________________________________________

Plaintiff Roshea P. Maderer challenges the trial court’s order sustaining without leave to amend the demurrer filed by defendant City of Los Angeles (the City)1 and dismissing this action. We hold that the trial court did not err by denying her motion for leave to amend her complaint. Further, we hold that Maderer’s claim is barred because she has failed to identify a statute under which a public entity could be held liable for causing the injuries she alleges she suffered. (See Gov. Code, § 815.) Accordingly, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW Maderer worked as a typist for LADWP. She alleges that, on December 24, 2012, an incident took place in which fellow employees threatened and verbally abused her in front of approximately 75 fellow employees at an office holiday party. Maderer claims that employees threatened to kick her in the face, falsely accused her of engaging in sexual encounters, and accused her of being a racist, a child molester, a liar, a thief, and a rat. Maderer filed a complaint with LADWP managers shortly after the incident occurred. Managers interviewed Maderer and her alleged attackers, and the City’s Equal Employment Opportunity Section (EEOS) initiated a formal complaint. Several months later, not having heard any results of the investigation, Maderer filed a request for the findings of the EEOS investigation of the event. The EEOS responded that it was “unable to locate any responsive documents.” Maderer filed a complaint in the trial court in March 2014. She alleged that LADWP had denied her right to due process under the United States Constitution by failing to investigate the incident, and she also alleged violations of state law. The City removed the case to federal court on the ground that the complaint presented allegations arising under federal law. The federal district court dismissed Maderer’s federal claim because she had sued directly under the United States Constitution, rather than under 42 United States Code section 1983, but gave Maderer leave to amend her complaint to