Sheppard v. County of Los Angeles CA2/8

Filed 5/25/23 Sheppard v. County of Los Angeles CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

KEN SHEPPARD, B317611

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20STCV03250 v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al.

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Affirmed.

Franklin L. Ferguson, Jr., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Hurrell Cantrall, Thomas C. Hurrell and Melinda Cantrall for Defendants and Respondents. ___________________________

Defendants and respondents County of Los Angeles, Bonnie Hanson, Caroline Rodriguez, and Tai Plunkett demurred to plaintiff and appellant Ken Sheppard’s second amended complaint. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer on the basis that plaintiff’s claims were untimely. We affirm. BACKGROUND This action arises out of an encounter between plaintiff and members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. In March 2014, plaintiff, a private investigator, was parked on a street in Montrose on a stakeout. Defendant Plunkett, a deputy sheriff, noticed plaintiff’s vehicle and approached it on foot with his gun drawn. Plaintiff opened the window and the men spoke. The situation quickly escalated to the point that Deputy Plunkett aimed his gun at plaintiff’s head, and left it trained there until later- arriving deputies intervened. Plaintiff was ordered out of his vehicle, handcuffed, frisked, and briefly detained in a sheriff’s vehicle while deputies searched his vehicle. The deputies cited plaintiff for Vehicle Code offenses relating to improperly displayed license plates and window tint on his vehicle and allowed him to leave. All cited offenses were later dismissed. After filing a Government Code section 910 claim for tort damages, which the County denied, plaintiff then filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging federal and state law claims. The district court case proceeded to trial. At a September 8, 2016 pretrial conference, the district court raised, on its own motion, “whether the Court should exercise its discretion and sever