Tripati v. City of Beverly Hills

Filed 7/25/06 Tripati v. City of Beverly Hills CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles. Elizabeth A. Grimes, Judge. Affirmed.

Anant Kumar Tripati, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Franscell, Strickland, Roberts & Lawrence, Cindy S. Lee, Jin S. Choi and Nathan A. Oyster for Defendant and Respondent.

_____________________________

Plaintiff Anant Kumar Tripati appeals the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denial of leave to amend the complaint. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

The plaintiff's complaint alleged the following facts, which we accept as true while reviewing the motion for judgment on the pleadings.[1]

In 1992, a police officer employed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney failed to itemize and effectively stole some innovative computer software plaintiff had designed as well as numerous personal records as part of an otherwise legal search and seizure. The plaintiff, from prison, wrote numerous letters to members of Congress, government officials, and judges soliciting help locating and retrieving his property. These letters eventually led him to report the crime to police in the City of Beverly Hills, who then failed to investigate the claim. In early 2005, plaintiff filed this civil suit. Defendant's failure to investigate is the sole factual basis of plaintiff's complaint, around which he has proffered six state law theories and to which he seeks to add a seventh claim based on federal civil rights laws.

The court below granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denying plaintiff's complaint on dual grounds, both for failing to state a cognizable claim and for failing to evade a number of state law immunities that preclude liability. The court also denied plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to add a federal cause of action. Plaintiff appeals these rulings. Because we find plaintiff's legal theories run further than the facts he has alleged can support, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

A defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings will be granted if the complaint does not contain facts sufficient to state a cause of action against defendant.[2] All facts properly pled in the complaint are assumed true for the sake of the motion; we do not, however, assume the truth of conclusions of fact or law, opinions, or speculation.[3] Because the motion raises only legal questions, we review the trial court's decision de novo.[4]

A plaintiff's task in a complaint is not to supply legal arguments for the court but to state facts that apprise the adversary and the court as to the nature, scope, and factual basis of the claim.[5] If we dismiss those portions of plaintiff's complaint that are conclusory or speculative in nature, the pleadings allege a single act by the defendant: failure to investigate a claim of theft plaintiff reported 12 years after its occurrence. It must be noted the other significant fact alleged - the theft of plaintiff's property - was not alleged against the defendant, and there are no facts other than the failure to investigate that would tie them to this alleged crime. Plaintiff advances six legal counts stemming from this failure to investigate, including multiple violations of his civil rights, violation of a mandatory duty to enforce the laws, and aiding in an act of intimidation. None of these theories is cognizable based on the facts alleged.

II. Plaintiff's Claims are Barred by Immunity Provisions and by Failure to Identify a Mandatory Duty.

Under the California Tort Claims Act, public entities cannot be held liable for injuries arising from their acts or omissions except as provided by statute.[6] Plaintiff has identified sections 815.2 and 815.6 of the Government Code, alleging both an injury caused by police officers during the scope of their employment, and a violation of a mandatory duty to protect against injuries such as he suffered.[7] These theories fail on multiple grounds. Police officers are immune from suit for failure to provide police services, and defendant cannot be held liable for acts for which its employees are not liable.[8] Regardless of this immunity, defendant has no mandatory duty to investigate all reports of theft or to recover all property reported stolen. Special duties to investigate occur in specific circumstances, but are not the normal case.[9] It is clear there is no general duty to investigate theft claims, particularly those 12 years in the past. The decision to expend police resources requires significant discretion, and public officials cannot be held liable for discretionary acts, even if this discretion is abused.[10]

II. Plaintiff has Failed to Establish a Basis for a State Civil Rights Violation.

Plaintiff also alleges a violation of his state civil rights under the Unruh, Ralph, and Bane Acts.[11] The injury alleged under these theories differs from the injury to property asserted in the previous claims. Plaintiff complains he was denied equal access to a business establishment, that defendant aided or incited a denial of his freedom from violence or intimidation, and he was a victim of threats and intimidation that denied his legal rights.

Even civil rights cases have been barred by governmental immunities.[12] We need not test this immunity, however, as plaintiff's claims fail to make out a civil rights violation against defendant.

The factual record contains only one incident that could be construed as violent, threatening, or intimidating - the seizure of defendant's property. That incident occurred in 1992, by a party other than the defendant. Plaintiff attempts to link defendant to this act through section 52 of the Civil Code, which provides liability for those who â€