Jones v. County of Los Angeles








Filed 11/15/10 Jones v. County of Los Angeles CA2/4







NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

AUDRAE R. JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent.

B219850 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC383529)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joanne O'Donnell, Judge. Affirmed.
Audrae R. Jones, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Offices of Torres & Brenner, Anita Susan Brenner and Leonard E. Torres, for Defendant and Respondent.
Appellant Audrae R. Jones appeals the judgment arising from the trial court's order dismissing her complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2), for failure to amend after the court sustained the demurrer of respondent County of Los Angeles (County) with leave to amend. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 9, 2008, appellant filed a form complaint naming the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) as defendant. Boxes were checked indicating appellant's claim was based on general negligence and intentional tort,[1] but the complaint did not include any specific allegations except that appellant's daughter, Maya Michelle Sandridge, had died while in the custody of DCFS.[2]
The County demurred to the complaint on grounds of uncertainty, failure to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action and failure to state a statutory basis for liability. Appellant did not file a written opposition, but filed a first amended complaint (FAC) before the demurrer could be heard, causing it to be taken off calendar.
The FAC was substantially the same as the original -- a form complaint with a few boxes checked and minimal factual allegations.[3] The County demurred to the FAC, again based on grounds of uncertainty, failure to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action and failure to state a statutory basis for liability. At the June 5, 2008 hearing, the court sustained the demurrer, giving appellant 20 days leave to amend.[4] Within a day, appellant prepared a motion for an extension of time, contending she was seeking to find an attorney or paralegal to assist her. The moving papers, which were completely handwritten and entitled â€