Ruling on Submitted Matter

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.September 10, 2015

123 23561 378401583 562400020067960 113454 21905 89 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, MINUTE ORDER TIME: 04:00:00 PM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Kevin DeNoce COUNTY OF VENTURA VENTURA DATE: 02/01/2016 DEPT: 43 CLERK: Tiffany Froedge REPORTER/ERM: CASE NO: 56-2015-00472093-CU-PO-VTA CASE TITLE: Caldwell vs. MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: PI/PD/WD - Other EVENT TYPE: Ruling on Submitted Matter STOLO APPEARANCES STOLO Stolo The Court, having previously taken the Motion for Order to Release School/Student Records under submission, now rules as follows: The court overrules the demurrer and denies the motions to strike. Defendants to answer within 10 days. Discussion: Second Cause of Action for Violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act [Civil Code §52.1]- The Bane Act provides that: "Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment . . . of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with [by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion], may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for damages . . . ." (Civil Code § 52.1, subd. (b).) " 'The essence of a Bane Act claim is that the defendant, by the specified improper means (i.e., "threats, intimidation or coercion"), tried to or did prevent the plaintiff from doing something he or she had the right to do under the law or to force the plaintiff to do something that he or she was not required to do under the law.' " (Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 947, 945-946, citations omitted.) Plaintiff's second cause of action sufficiently alleges that Defendants interfered with Plaintiff's "exercise and enjoyment of his rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of California" "through threats, intimidation, and coercion." (Complaint, p. 6:18-21.) As to whether Plaintiff can establish interference with a right secured by the Constitution or laws of this state is a matter more properly addressed in the first instance at a motion for summary judgment/adjudication. VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 02/01/2016 Page 1 DEPT: 43 CASE TITLE: Caldwell vs. MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO: 56-2015-00472093-CU-PO-VTA There is nothing in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820 to suggest that the statutory provisions plaintiff relies on in his second cause of action are insufficient to support a Civil Code §52.1 claim. There is nothing to suggest that only statutes that secure rights not previously available under common law qualify for protection under section 52.1. Motion to Strike As used in Civil Code §3294 "'Malice' means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others." Wilk's alleged pummeling of the plaintiff in ¶15 of the complaint is more than enough to constitute "malice." Motion to Strike the Remedies Provided by Civil Code §52.1 In their moving papers, Defendants provide no argument for striking the non-punitive damages requested in the prayer for the 2nd cause of action. In Defendants reply brief, it is argued that since Plaintiff has not stated a cause of action under Civil Code §52.1, his requests for relief under it should be stricken. Having concluded that defendants failed to establish the Civil Code §52.1 claim is defective, the motion to strike the non-punitive damage requests accompanying the 2nd cause of action is denied. Motion to Strike Punitive Damage Claims for Failure to Comply with Civil Code §3294(b) Civil Code §3294(b) provides: "An employer shall not be liable for [punitive] damages . . . based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation." The allegations in ¶¶ 20-23 of the complaint are sufficient to meet the requirements of §3294(b). Notice to be given by clerk. STOLO VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 02/01/2016 Page 2 DEPT: 43