Whittaker v. Superior Court

Filed 2/24/06 Whittaker v. Superior Court CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David A. Thompson, Judge. (Judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Robinson & Schmidt, David M. Robinson, and Michael E. Mahurin for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton, Fred M. Plevin, and Sandra L. McDonough for Defendants and Respondents.

Appellant Rasheedah Whittaker appeals from the trial court's decision to sustain a demurrer to her complaint against respondents Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Superior Court) and K.C. Smoot. Appellant contends that the court abused its discretion in failing to grant relief from her late filing of a prelitigation claim against respondents due to confusion over whether Smoot was employed by the Superior Court or the County of Los Angeles (County). We disagree and further conclude that the complaint lacked substantive merit. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Complaint

Appellant filed a complaint against the County on February 19, 2004, which was amended in May 2004. According to the allegations of the First Amended Complaint (FAC), appellant was employed by GC Systems, a collection agency hired by the County to collect traffic fines. In August 2003, appellant was allegedly sexually harassed by Smoot when he purportedly grabbed his crotch and said: â€