"I am inclined to deny it on all grounds"

Demurrers in one lawsuits filed by former Deputy Public Defender Rory Kalin and case management in another lawsuit were scheduled this afternoon.

Mendocino County Judge Ann Moorman has been assigned to both cases. She heard arguments and made some rulings today.

Humboldt Superior Court Judge Gregory Elvine-Kreis is the defendant in the first lawsuit filed. He is also the defendant in the second lawsuit. Humboldt  County Public Defender's Office, Public Defender Marek Reavis and Deputy Public Defender Luke Brownfield are the co-defendants in the second lawsuit.

Judge Elvine-Kreis' attorney is Mr. Patrik Griego. Kalin's attorney is Jonathan Hornberger.

In the second lawsuit, the County hired a Sacramento firm, Angelo, Kilday and Kilduff instead of having Humboldt County Counsel represent Public Defender Marek Reavis and Deputy Public Defender Luke Brownfield.

It is going to take a while. Judge Moorman needs resolves all the demurrer issues. There is an amended complaint. Then possibly more demurrers. Next court date will be sent out to parties. 

Regarding the demurrer for Judge Gregory Elvine-Kreis who is named as an individual; not in his capacity as a Judge, things look bleaker. Judge Moorman denied the claims about compliance of Government Tort Act. As for the rest of the demurrer for Elvine-Kreis, Judge Moorman is taking it under submission.

Judge Moorman indicated regarding the demurrer for Mr. Elvine-Kreis,"I am inclined to deny it on all grounds. If I grant part of it; it would be with leave to amend."

A motion to consolidate both cases and a motion to move the trial date for the first lawsuit currently scheduled in June will be filed by the defense.

I am always impressed with Judge Moorman. A good Judge knows the law, listens to both sides, dies not rush either party and is not biased against one party and follows the law. Humboldt Superior Judge Kelly Neel is another excellent judge. 

Kalin definitely made a better choice to replace Mr. Hornberger and let go of Ms. Cyndi Day Wilson. He cited case law and mentioned specifics.

Ms. Melissa Currier of the Sacramento firm was unimpressive and unprepared.  Twice she could not cite case authority and her request for demurrer to those two counts were denied. 

There was a lot of back and forth about what was granted or not in the hour long hear. At least, three different times and it seemed like slight changes in the ruling and the reasons and counts. Even the attorneys had to ask the Judge for clarifications.

The first time Judge Moorman mentioned the demurrer for the County, Mr. Reavis and Mr. Brownfield and certain counts that Ms. Currier claimed were not in compliance with the Government Torts Act, she said, " If I do grant the demurrer," it will be the cure that Mr. Hornberger can amend the complaint.

Mr. Hornberger said, "Why was the Government Torts Act not addressesed in the opposition." He said, "We can amend the complaint."

To counsel for defendant Elvine-Kreis, the Government Tort Claims Act has been complied with," said Judge Moorman.

Mr. Griego made some comments. Judge Moorman responded, "I don't see it that way. He is being sued in his individual capacity."

Mr. Griego said, "If you look at the complaint, it says anti-Semitic judge in Humboldt County. In a separate lawsuit, it says various judicial officers made the claim."

Mr. Hornberger responded, "The Court's reasoning is spot on. We sued defendant Elvine-Kreis as an individual. It is stated multiple times in the complaint. Reavis communicated with various judicial officers. Those do not include Elvine-Kreis."

Judge Moorman said demurrer granted to County and County defendants for failure to comply with Government Tort Acts claims with leave to amend."

There were more remarks by Judge Moorman and argument  about various counts by Ms. Currier about labor code. Again, Judge Moorman granted demurrer to some counts with leave to amend. These only applied to County and County defendants.

Ms. Currier requested the wrongful termination should be dismissed and is not provided under FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act). She said common law claims don't apply to public entities.

Mr. Hornberger said, "Public entities are entitled to wrongful termination."

Judge Moorman granted the demurrer to Count 14 with leave to amend. She told Mr. Hornberger,"you need to state the breach clearly."

Judge Moorman said she was granting the demurrer to Counts 1 through 8, then 1 to 7 on government tort act claims and they were all non FEHA claims. Granting it for Count 14 for not have legally sufficient facts with leave to amend.  Counts 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 was confusing. Once it seemed granted; another time denied. All other counts not mentioned, the demurrer was denied.

Ms. Currier then addressed claims related to "three types of leave." She said Leave 2 was demotion by Reavis and stress caused by Elvine-Kreis; Leave 3 stress caused by Reavis and Brownfield. "There are no facts against Brownfield. He was only on the boat."

Mr. Hornberger said "FEHA recignizes disability and medical conditions." He said Currier was saying just stress; it was extreme stress. There was a physical injury; the concussion. "Not just what was caused" by Reavis and Brownfield.

Ms. Currier said Kalin was "attributing actions by Elvine-Kreis to the County."

Judge Moorman said, "this is not a motion for summary judgement. A lot of your arguments require the Court to do a factual interpretation. This is about the complaint."

Ms. Currier, if nothing else, is persistent. Even though she was getting nowhere, she continued, "There is nothing to show the County defendants share the same animus as defendant Elvine-Kreis."

"The complaint is pretty detailed," said Judge Moorman. "Style is not a reason to grant a demurrer."

Mr. Hornberger said, "there is a personal relationship between Reavis, Brownfield and Elvine-Kreis who have a history together."

I  have the demurrers  but not posting pages and pages because the complaint will be amended, then there maybe more demurrers. 

Regardless of what happens and who prevails; one thing is for sure, these lawsuits will bring out some information and a side of Humboldt Superior Court and people that the public doesn't know. There are many whispers, many observations, many stories but even in this lawsuit, they have to be legally relevant and based on fact. 

Before I started this court blog, I already knew a lot about Humboldt Superior Court, the people and the dynamics. I am involved in the community and a  good journalist is always observant. The remark about personal relationships, friendships and history goes a lot deeper than what maybe revealed in this lawsuit. I have personal knowledge about certain Judges, court staff, public defenders and private attorneys and their regular interactions.

Recent posts:

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2021/01/instead-of-county-counsel-sacramento.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2020/12/no-appearances-by-attorneys-or-parties.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2020/11/rory-kalin-files-another-lawsuit.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2020/10/private-mediationdepositions-and-motion.html?m=1