Barron v. Galvin CA5
F071085
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 14, 2016Background
- On April 28, 2014 Shelly and Vincent Barron sued after an August 1, 2012 rear-end car crash allegedly caused by Gerald Galvin. Galvin was a City of Mendota employee (Chief of Police).
- Original complaint named both Galvin and the City of Mendota and pleaded two causes of action: (1) motor vehicle negligence alleging Galvin acted within the scope of employment and the City was employer; and (2) general negligence alleging Galvin’s individual negligence (the second count did not allege scope of employment).
- Defendants demurred to the original complaint for failure to allege compliance with the Government Claims Act. Plaintiffs then filed a first amended complaint dismissing the City and suing Galvin individually; the amended pleading omitted the scope-of-employment allegation.
- Galvin demurred to the first amended complaint, arguing the omission was a sham amendment and the original scope-of-employment allegation should be read into the amended pleading, which would require compliance with the Government Claims Act and defeat the claim.
- The trial court sustained Galvin’s demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sham-pleading rule permits reading the original scope-of-employment allegation into the first amended complaint | Barron: The amended complaint legitimately omitted one alternative factual theory and preserved an individual negligence claim; pleadings may allege inconsistent or alternative facts | Galvin: Omitting the prior allegation was a sham to avoid the Government Claims Act bar; the original admission remains and must be treated as part of the amended pleading | Court reversed: sham-pleading rule inapplicable — omission removed an alternative allegation in good faith and plaintiffs may pursue individual liability against Galvin |
Key Cases Cited
- McCall v. PacifiCare of Cal., 25 Cal.4th 412 (review of demurrer is de novo)
- Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (denial of leave to amend reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Vallejo Development Co. v. Beck Development Co., 24 Cal.App.4th 929 (amended pleading generally supersedes original; sham-pleading exception explained)
- Owens v. Kings Supermarket, 198 Cal.App.3d 379 (court may assume truth of amended pleading but may examine prior complaint under sham-pleading doctrine)
- Hahn v. Mirda, 147 Cal.App.4th 740 (sham doctrine inapplicable where an alternate factual allegation was omitted in good faith)