Alonzo v. County of Los Angeles CA2/1

Filed 2/26/13 Alonzo v. County of Los Angeles CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ADRIAN ALONZO, B240191

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC468250) v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al.

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Yvette M. Palazuelos, Judge. Affirmed. ______

David Haas for Plaintiff and Appellant. Collins Collins Muir & Stewart, Melinda W. Ebelhar, Catherine M. Mathers, and Christie Bodnar Swiss, for Defendants and Respondents. ______

Adrian Alonzo appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered against him on his complaint for battery and violation of his civil rights. Defendants demurred to the complaint on the basis of the judgment against Alonzo in a prior federal court action arising from the same incident, and the superior court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. We affirm. BACKGROUND On August 26, 2011, Alonzo filed a complaint in the superior court against the County of Los Angeles (the County), its sheriff‟s department, and Michael Kennard, a sheriff‟s deputy. Alonzo alleged claims for battery and violation of his civil rights under Civil Code section 52.1, subdivisions (a) and (b). Defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action because of the preclusive effect of the judgment against Alonzo in a prior federal court action arising from the same incident; defendants also argued that the claims were barred by certain tort immunity statutes. In support of the demurrer, defendants requested that the superior court take judicial notice of the order granting Kennard‟s motion for qualified immunity in the federal action. The superior court granted defendants‟ request for judicial notice, sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the basis of collateral estoppel and the tort immunity statutes, and entered a judgment of dismissal. Alonzo timely appealed. The complaint alleges the following facts: “On or about the afternoon of January 14, 2010, [Alonzo] was walking on the sidewalk near his Gardena, California residence. Suddenly, a car containing . . . Kennard pulled up close to [Alonzo]. . . . Kennard leaped out of the car and pointed his firearm at [Alonzo]. Kennard demanded [Alonzo] turn around. [Alonzo] began to comply. He did not make any threatening statements, gestures, or actions toward . . . Kennard. [Alonzo] was unarmed. Kennard fired a bullet into [Alonzo] striking him in his left shoulder/neck area. [Alonzo] collapsed in a pool of his own blood.” As regards the procedural background, the complaint alleges that Alonzo originally filed suit in federal court, apparently alleging both federal and state law claims.