Silva v. Block, B091890
Citation | 49 Cal.App.4th 345,56 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 |
Decision Date | 15 August 1996 |
Docket Number | No. B091890,B091890 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6922, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,324 Samuel SILVA, Jr. et al., Plaintiff and Appellants, v. Sherman BLOCK, as Sheriff, etc., et al., Defendant and Respondents. |
Litt and Marquez, Barrett S. Litt and Kathryn K. Imahara, Los Angeles, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
De Witt W. Clinton, County Counsel, S. Robert Ambrose, Assistant County Counsel and Roger H. Granbo, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.
Manning, Marder & Wolfe, Robert S. Wolfe and Eugene P. Ramirez, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents.
Plaintiffs appeal from an order sustaining demurrers to class action allegations in their action against Los Angeles County (County), Sheriff Sherman Block, and certain other members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (the Sheriff's Department). Plaintiffs allege that the Sheriff's Department utilized a policy that resulted in suspects being "routinely bitten" by police dogs whether or not they posed a threat of violence. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred procedurally in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing before dismissing the class action allegations and substantively in determining that the case is not suitable for class action treatment.
Two representative plaintiffs, Samuel Silva, Jr., and Rudy Becerra, filed the original class action complaint in October 1991. They alleged they represented a class consisting of people wrongly and unjustifiably attacked by police dogs used by the Sheriff's Department. They also sought to represent a minority subclass comprised of all individuals belonging to racial minorities who had suffered such attacks.
Defendants demurred to the class action allegations of the complaint. They contended there were insufficient common questions of law and fact between the two alleged class plaintiffs and that neither Silva nor Becerra was an appropriate class representative because each had alleged that he had been involved in a violent, serious crime justifying deployment of police dogs to search and apprehend him. The trial court sustained the demurrers with leave to amend. It noted that neither Silva nor Becerra was an appropriate representative of a class of persons who had engaged in misdemeanors or nonviolent felonies, and allowed plaintiffs leave to conduct discovery and to amend the complaint.
Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in June 1994, adding 10 new individuals as representative plaintiffs for the class. They deleted the specific allegations regarding the deployment of police dogs, and alleged as to each representative plaintiff, including Silva and Becerra, that "the deputies did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion that [the plaintiff] presented an immediate and credible threat of serious injury or death, or otherwise posed a threat justifying a dog attack." Defendants again demurred on numerous grounds, including that the claims were not suited to class disposition and that the named plaintiffs were not appropriate class representatives either because they had already brought actions against the County for virtually the same claims or in their individual cases the canine handler had probable cause to deploy the police dog.
At the demurrer hearing, plaintiffs' counsel admitted that they had been unable to discover any new class members beyond the 1990 to 1992 time frame. Counsel attributed the lack of additional plaintiffs to a change in policy in the Sheriff's Department. The trial court sustained the demurrers, finding that individual issues predominated, that plaintiffs had been unable to produce a representative plaintiff, and that plaintiffs had "conceded at the hearing that the Department's canine policy now conforms to accepted practice." It permitted plaintiffs with preexisting individual actions to proceed with such actions and gave the remaining plaintiffs 30 days leave to amend their individual claims.
Contrary to plaintiffs' position, trial courts properly and (Clausing v. San Francisco Unified School Dist. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1224, 1234, 271 Cal.Rptr. 72.) Since the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to establish the elements necessary for maintenance of a class action, it was not error for the court to dispose of the matter on demurrer.
When a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, the burden of proving a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment is on the plaintiff. (Kennedy v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 799, 808, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 736.) In the present case, after sustaining demurrers to the original complaint, the trial court allowed plaintiffs approximately two and one-half years to conduct discovery and to amend their complaint. Despite that generous allowance, plaintiffs were unable to plead a community of interest among the potential class members and that common questions of law and fact predominate over individual issues. Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of showing the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend.
In reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer, we treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law, and consider matters which may be judicially noticed, giving the complaint a reasonable interpretation in determining whether it states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Kennedy v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., supra, 43 Cal.App.4th 799, 807, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 736.) We must affirm if the trial court's decision to sustain the demurrer was correct on any theory. (Kennedy v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., supra, 43 Cal.App.4th 799, 808, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 736.)
Where the issue resolved on demurrer is whether an action should proceed as a class action, the trial court must determine whether "there is a 'reasonable possibility' plaintiffs can plead a prima facie community of interest among class members...." (Brown v. Regents of University of California (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 982, 988, 198 Cal.Rptr. 916.) (Brown v. Regents of University of California, supra, 151 Cal.App.3d 982, 989, 198 Cal.Rptr. 916.)
Citing Pinnacle Holdings, Inc. v. Simon (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1434, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 778, plaintiffs contend that we must review the demurrer ruling de novo. Respondents take the position that the standard for review of denial of class certification, abuse of discretion (see Caro v. Procter & Gamble Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 644, 655, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 419), should be applied in this case. We need not reach this issue, since under either standard our decision would be the same.
Maintenance of a class action requires (Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 470, 174 Cal.Rptr. 515, 629 P.2d 23.)
The trial court based its rejection of class action treatment upon plaintiffs' failure to show that common questions of law or fact predominated and upon their failure to name representative plaintiffs. In addition, it stated that if, as ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC
...defective complaint if she can "prov[e] a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment." ( Silva v. Block (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 345, 349, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 ; T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2017) 4 Cal.5th 145, 162, 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 336, 407 P.3d 18.) The onus is......
-
Tucker v. Pac. Bell Mobile Servs.
...v. San Francisco Unified School Dist. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1224, 1234, 271 Cal.Rptr. 72( Clausing ); accord, Silva v. Block (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 345, 349, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 613.) Demurrers may serve “as a screening mechanism for improperly pleaded class action allegations.” ( TJX Companies, ......
-
Tucker v. Pac. Bell Mobile Servs.
...v. San Francisco Unified School Dist. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1224, 1234, 271 Cal.Rptr. 72( Clausing ); accord, Silva v. Block (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 345, 349, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 613.) Demurrers may serve “as a screening mechanism for improperly pleaded class action allegations.” ( TJX Companies, ......
-
Greenfield v. Fritz Companies, Inc., A086982.
...where this occurred all involved demurrers specifically directed at the class action allegations. (See, e.g., Silva v. Block (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 345, 348-349, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 613; Kennedy v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 799, 803, 805-807, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 736; Clausing v. Sa......