DANIEL POWELL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Wednesday, August 27, 2025, Line 5 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. DEFENDANTS CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, AND LONDON BREED's MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.

The City and County of San Francisco moves for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff Daniel Powell's Second Amended Complaint, filed on May 15, 2025. For the reasons stated herein the motion is granted without leave to amend as to the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action, and the third cause of action is stricken.

The motion is granted without leave to amend as to the first cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Powell alleges "[h]ate actions associated with Plaintiff's Biological Sex." On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court takes factual allegations as true but disregards conclusions. This statement is conclusory and does not plead facts. The court denies leave to amend because Powell has been granted prior opportunities to amend on similarly conclusory allegations, and his opposition offers no facts he could plead on amendment.

The motion is granted without leave to amend as to the second cause of action for premises liability concerning an incident on October 1, 2021 at the Dore Urgent Care Facility where staff engaged in IIED by letting other patients "physically and spiritually trespass" on Powell and through "[l]ibelous entry into Plaintiff's Medical Record." This claim is time-barred; the action was filed on July 25, 2024 and the limitations period for either premises liability or intentional infliction of emotional distress is two years. (Code Civ. Proc., section 335.1.)

The third cause of action pleads premises liability and IIED arising out of staff at the Hummingbird Center allowing patients to engage in similar behavior toward Powell on November 20, 2024. Powell does not plead a special relationship or any heightened duty by Hummingbird staff that would give rise to a duty to protect him from other patients. This would ordinarily require the court to give him leave to amend to allege such a special relationship. But here, the claim accrued after the action was initially filed in July of 2024.

It therefore must be raised by way of a supplemental complaint, not an amendment to the complaint. A pleading that seeks to allege facts that occurred after the filing of the original complaint is a supplemental complaint. (See CCP 464(a); Foster v. Sexton (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 998, 1032 ("A 'supplemental' pleading is used to allege facts occurring after the original pleading was filed. [citation] In contrast, the additional allegations in an 'amended' pleading address matters that had occurred before the original pleading was filed.").)

Powell did not seek leave to file a supplemental complaint, and in the remainder of this order the court is granting judgment to the City without leave to amend as to all of the other causes of action. The court therefore strikes this cause of action.

The fourth cause of action alleges premises liability and IIED arising when staff at the Hummingbird Center allowed patients to engage in objectionable behavior toward Powell in March of 2022. This cause of action is time barred and the court grants the motion as to it without leave to amend.

[End of part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.] =(301/CVA) | |