Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint
Opposition
Reply
Supplemental Briefing
Tentative:? Sustain without leave to amend
The putative class action complaint in this Los Angeles Superior court lawsuit was filed March 26, 2014, against the County of Los Angeles and 50 Doe defendants.? Much of the conduct in the complaint concerns a written communication to plaintiff from GC Services, a debt collection entity that apparently contracts with the County of Los Angeles to collect unpaid traffic fines.? The gravamen of the complaint against the County is that it failed to first review for errors and misstatements the letter sent by GC Services.
While the lawsuit purports to be on behalf of all individuals who received GC Services communications as the result of red-light camera citations, from the beginning, plaintiff has alleged he was a documented victim of identity theft and never received a red-light camera citation.
This court stayed the action while plaintiff’s companion lawsuit against GC Services, based on the same written communication, was prosecuted in Contra Costa County.? The parties advise a confidential settlement was reached in that matter.
Once the stay was lifted here, this demurrer was set for hearing on November 9, 2016.? At that time, the Honorable Vikki L. Vander Woude (temporary judge) indicated the demurrer would be sustained without leave to amend on grounds not raised by the parties, invited supplemental briefing and continued the hearing.? The court has reviewed the supplemental briefing.
The court sustains the demurrer without leave to amend.
When ruling on a demurrer, trial courts are to construe complaints “liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded.” ?(Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.)
The GC Services collection notice was sent as part of a court proceeding after judgment on a traffic citation was allegedly rendered.? Only direct attacks on a judgment are permissible.? (People v. $6,500 U.S. Currency (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1542, 1548.)? Viewed as a challenge to a traffic judgment, this civil lawsuit is an impermissible collateral attack.? On this basis, the demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend.
Plaintiff contends the court should not have invited ?supplemental briefing on the litigation privilege and direct attack/collateral attack issues.? But the original demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint, filed August 1, 2014, cited Government Code section 821.6.? While that section concerns the immunity of public employees who institute judicial proceedings, Government Code section 815.2 extends that immunity to public entities.? Moreover, the Supreme Court has announced that these communication immunities are based on the litigation privilege:? “? Thus, communications with some relation to judicial proceedings are absolutely immune from tort liability by the litigation privilege.”? (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1057, internal quotation marks omitted.)
Plaintiff further alleges the GC Services notice was sent to him in error as the result of identity theft and he never received the traffic citation that prompted it.? (See his letter to GC Services attached as exhibit C to each iteration of the complaint).? Thus, one reasonable inference from the pleading is that no judgment was ever rendered against him.? The reasonableness of this inference is supported by plaintiff’s failure to allege in three versions of his complaint that he suffered any damages (other than attorney’s fees in bringing this action).? For example, plaintiff does not contend he ever paid a fine, his wages were garnished or the DMV imposed a hold on his driver’s license.? Under this analysis, plaintiff has no standing to challenge the GC Services letter and, by extension, any actions by the County of Los Angeles concerning that letter, on behalf of a putative class of judgment debtors.? He also has no standing to claim third-party beneficiary status as a result of the alleged GC Services/County of Los Angeles contract.? On both bases, the demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend.
Motion for Leave to Amend to file Third Amended Complaint
Opposition
Reply
Tentative:? off calendar as moot
The court has announced a tentative to sustain the demurer to the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend.? The court has reviewed the proposed Third Amended Complaint and it does nothing to suggest that leave to amend should be granted.