UIA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Feb-07-2019 2:41 pm Case Number: CGC-16-555910 Filing Date: Feb-07-2019 2:40 Filed by: SAJJA RAVINANTAPRICA Image: 06679980 GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE) CHARLES PITTS VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, HUMAN SERVICES ET AL 001006679980 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.10 u 12 2B 14 15 16 7 19 20 a 22 23 24 26 27 28 FILED FEB ~7 2019 CLERK QF TH COURT ae ‘Depuy Oe | SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CHARLES PITTS, Case No. CGC-16-555910 TENTATIVE STATEMENT OF DECISION vs. PURSUANT TO CA. RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.1590 (b) (4) CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, HUMAN SERVICES, AGENCY, EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY| Action Filed: — December 14, 2016 SERVICES and OFFICE OF H.O.P.E, | Trial Date: January 23, 2019 Dept: 613 Defendants. Judge: ‘The Hon, Teri L. Jackson This matter was the subject of a bench trial before this Court that commenced on. January 23, 2019 and ended on January 25, 2019. Plaintiff Charles Pitts was self- represented. Defendants Episcopal Community Services of San Francisco (“ECS”) and City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”) were represented by attomey Christina M. Forst of Allen, Glaessner, Hazelwood & Werth, LLP. Trial proceeded on the Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint filed on November 14, 2017. Pursuant to previous Court’s Orders on October 13, 2017 and May 18, 2018, the only remaining cause of action was negligence pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants Episcopal Community Services of San Francisco were neglect [sic] by allowing Cynthia Hall, Dennis Dennison and Ms. Powell to continually harass and be violent towards plaintiff with little or no consequences.” (Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, Paragraph 12.) Plaintiff's allegations center on an altercation that occurred on or about January 31, 2016 between Plaintiff and a ol.Seca rxauaee third-party Dennis Dennison. Defendants filed trial brief and pretrial motions in limine. On January 23, 2019, after the Plaintiff rested, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Nonsuit as to CSF. The Plaintiff failed to identify or present evidence that any CCSF employee was involved in this case. Defense argued that Plaintiff could not allege a negligent cause of action pursuant to Government Code section 815.2 and Cochran v. Herzog (1984) 155 Cal. App. 3"! 405, 409. On January 24, 2019, the Court permitted Plaintiff to re-open his case in order to present evidence against CCSF. Plaintiff did not present any additional evidence and re-rested, The Court, again, granted Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Nonsuit in part as to ccs. In reaching this tentative decision, the Court has considered all admissible oral or written evidence, all applicable legal authorities pertaining to the merits of the parties’ claims and to any evidentiary issue, the standard of review at trial and Plaintiff's burden of proof. ‘The Court now issues this Tentative Statement of Decision, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1590 (b)(4). I. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS BASED UPON ADMISSIBLE RECEIVED IN THE TRIAL Karen Gruneisen, the Associate Director and Custodian of Records at ECS, testified that ECS was founded in approximately 1989. I is one of San Francisco's largest providers of services and housing for individuals experiencing homelessness. Navigation Centers were designed to be different from traditional homeless shelters in that they had few barriers to entry and provided intensive case management. The Navigation Center employed a unique “come as you are” approach to its clients. Individuals with partners, pets, and possessions were welcome at Navigation Centers, unlike traditional shelters. In 2015, ECS created San Francisco's first Navigation Center at 1950 Mission Street, (Mission Navigation Center”), This was done in response to CCSF?s request for proposals. While CCSF funded these Navigation Centers, ECS employed and staffed the Centers. The Mission Navigation Center consisted of multiple dorm rooms, administrative offices, a toilet/shower area, and a storage area, all surrounding a courtyard. Each dorm room contained 12-15 beds, which could be pushed together to accommodate partners. Clients -2-