Susan Spell v. County of Los Angeles

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 8, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-06652
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SUSAN SPELL, et al., Case No. 2:19-06652DOC(ADS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES 14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGEAND DISMISSING CASE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewedthe pleadings and all the 18 records and files herein, includingthe Report and Recommendationof United States 19 Magistrate Judge (“R&R”), dated May 29, 2020 [Dkt. No. 114], Plaintiffs’Objections to 20 the R&R (“Objections”)[Dkt. No. 115],1and Defendant County of Los Angeles’ Response 21 to Plaintiffs’ Objections [Dkt. No. 118]. 22 23 1Plaintiffs’ Objections were filed twice. [Dkt. Nos. 115, 116]. As both documents are the same, the Court will only refer to Dkt. No. 115 in reference to the Objections. 24 1 The Court overrules Plaintiffs’ Objections in their entirety on the basis that 2 nothing in the Objections adequately refutes the findings and conclusions in the R&R. 3 See[Dkt. No. 114, pp. 11, 20]. For example, Plaintiffs’ Objections misstate the R&R with 4 regard to California Civil Code Section 1542. [Dkt. No. 115, p. 6]. The R&R clearlyfinds 5 that Plaintiff Spell cannot state a claim for relief based upon her prior release of both

6 known and unknown claimsagainst the County of Los Angeles and its employees, and 7 her waiver of the protections of California Civil Code Section 1542 in the Final 8 Settlement AgreementandRelease. It is this Final Settlement Agreement and Release 9 which resulted in the 2018 Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice of Entire 10 Action Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) in Central District of California Case No. 2:15- 11 7775, Susan Spell, M.D.v. County of Los Angeles, et al. [Dkt. No. 114, pp. 16-18]. 12 Second, Plaintiffs erroneously argue that the R&R is in error because the 13 statutory language of Section 1542is not quoted andno explicit waiver of Section 1542 14 protection, “is found in the release Dr. Spell agreed to in settling her prior case.” [Dkt. 15 No. 115, p. 8]. However, both the statutory language of California Civil Section 1542, 16 and an explicit waiver of Section 1542 protection,are found in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of the

17 Final Settlement Agreementand Release. See[Dkt. No. 79-2, p. 52]. Third, Plaintiffs 18 object to the determination that Spell waived her right to both known and unknown 19 claims in the Final Settlement Agreement, arguing this to be a factual issue that cannot 20 be decided on a motion to dismiss. However, the Magistrate Judgecorrectly considered 21 the release language in evaluating whether Plaintiffs stated a claim upon which relief 22 can be granted. SeeMarder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 449 (9th Cir. 2006) (properly 23 considering the at issue release agreement as “part of the complaint”); United States v. 24 Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) (the court may treat documents incorporated by 1 reference as part of the complaint and “may assume that its contents are true for 2 purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)”). 3 Although PlaintiffSpellrepeatedly insists she would not have signed the Final 4 SettlementAgreement had she known about the alleged raciallydiscriminatory report, 5 “the law imputes to [Plaintiff] an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of

6 [her] words and acts.” Marder, 450 F.3d at 449 (citingJefferson v. Cal. Dep't. of Youth 7 Auth., 28 Cal. 4th 299, 121 Cal. Rptr.2d 391, 48 P.3d 423, 426-27 (Cal. 2002) (quoting 8 Edwards v. Comstock Ins. Co., 205 Cal. App. 3d 1164, 252 Cal. Rptr. 807, 810 (1988))). 9 Determining Plaintiff’s subjective intent at the time is not necessary when the intent of 10 the parties’ can “be inferred from the language of the Release,” meaning the language is 11 not ambiguous or uncertain. Here, the language of the Release and Section 1542 waiver 12 in the Final Settlement Agreementand Releaseis broad, clear, and explicit. For the 13 reasons stated in the R&R, Plaintiff Spell’s attempt to avoid the ramifications of the 14 Final Settlement Agreementand Release, by asserting fraudulent inducement and 15 unconscionability,fails. As such, all of Plaintiff’s claims alleged in the Complaint or 16 proffered in the Opposition are barred.

17 In addition, this Court also agrees with the determination that any civil rights and 18 loss of consortium claims brought by PlaintiffSpell related to the events described in the 19 Complaintarebarred by the two-year statute of limitationsand equitable tolling does 20 not applyon account of Plaintiff’s alleged 2018 discovery of a 730 reportby Dr. Gibbs 21 dated in2013. In addition to that set out in the R&R, there is ample evidence across 22 Plaintiff’s many cases that she received the at-issue report prior to 2018. SeeCase No. 23 2:18-04527 JFW (ADS) [Dkt. No. 55, p. 32](reflecting Plaintiff Spell was carbon copied 24 on the reportwhen it was sent to her legal counsel on or about February 25, 2013); 2:19- 1 06652 DOC (ADS) [Dkt. No. 118, p. 2; Dkt. No. 118-1, p. 16](reflecting Plaintiff, under 2 penalty of perjury, described the contents of the report and attached the report to a 3 Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order Application she filed on November 14, 4 2016). 5 This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Co-Plaintiff

6 Evans not be given leave to amend. In addition to the fact that the Complaint contains 7 little to no allegations specifically related to Evans, the record reflects that Plaintiff 8 cannot refrain from usingand controllingthe lawsuits of her family members as a 9 vehicle to pursue her ownlitigation interests. Evans has not sufficiently argued he will 10 be prejudiced or that his claims will be time barred. 11 Finally, this Court finds no support for Plaintiffs’ assertion that the R&R is the 12 result of racial discrimination. The findings and conclusions in the R&R are based upon 13 a well-reasoned application of the lawand analysis of the legal pleadings in this case. 14 As such, after thorough analysis and consideration ofthe Complaint, the Motion 15 to Dismissand related filings, the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiffs’ Objections, 16 Defendant’s Responseto Objections, and having performed a denovoreview of those

17 portions to which objections were made, the Court concurs with and accepts the 18 findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBYORDERED: 20 1. The United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 21 [Dkt. No. 114], is accepted; 22 2. DefendantCounty of Los Angeles’ Motion to Dismiss[Dkt. No.79]is 23 granted; 24 3. The case is dismissedin its entirety. Plaintiff Spell’s claims are dismissed 1 with prejudice. Co-Plaintiff Evan’s claims are dismissed without prejudice 2 and without leave to amend, except the claim of consortium which is with 3 prejudice; and 4 4. Judgment is to be entered accordingly. 5 - g ||DATED: July 8, 2020 Kl a Contin _ THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24