Sarno v. City of Los Angeles CA2/8

Filed 1/31/24 Sarno v. City of Los Angeles CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

LISA SARNO, B321808

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCV33073 v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Affirmed. Blair & Ramirez, Oscar Ramirez, Matthew P. Blair, Regina Lotardo; Esner, Chang & Boyer, Stuart B. Esner and Kathleen J. Becket for Plaintiff and Appellant. Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Attorney, Denise C. Mills, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Scott Marcus, Chief Assistant City Attorney, and Rebekah Young, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. ____________________

Lisa Sarno sued her former employer, the City of Los Angeles, claiming the City retaliated against her for whistleblowing in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 (section 1102.5). The City demurred, arguing Sarno had not complied with the Government Code’s claim presentation requirement and had filed an untimely government claim. We affirm the judgment and order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. We independently review the trial court’s ruling and apply the familiar standard for demurrers. (See Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Sarno had several chances to plead viable claims against the City. Her operative pleading is the second amended complaint, which has one cause of action for whistleblower retaliation under section 1102.5. According to this complaint, Sarno reported to staff at the Mayor’s office and others that increased homelessness and the establishment of a shelter near Sarno’s workplace—the El Pueblo Historical Monument—led to more violent crime there. Sarno maintains her reports amounted to protected activity under the Labor Code, but the City terminated her in retaliation for voicing her concerns. Sarno’s lawsuit claims the City’s acts caused her to suffer “economic loss and damages, physical ailments, [and] emotional distress[.]” The complaint says the City terminated Sarno on February 28, 2020, and Sarno submitted her government claim on February 24, 2021. This claim identifies Sarno’s injuries as “[l]oss of income, loss of future income, loss of benefits, emotional distress.” Emotional distress comprised the bulk of the itemized damages. Sarno itemized her damages in her claim as follows: