Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 24STCV01901, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 24STCV01901, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01901 Hearing Date: April 14, 2025 Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Stephan Johnson (Plaintiff) filed this action against his employer, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant).

The causes of action are: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Retaliation; (4) Defamation; and (5) Negligent Hiring Supervision and Retention.

Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff did not file an Opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself.” Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 877 (citation omitted). “A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999 (citations omitted). “‘The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Bezirdjian v. O’Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322 (quoting Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216).

ANALYSIS

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to plead compliance with the “California Tort Claims Act”. Mot. at p. 8.; see City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 734 (City of Stockton) (explaining that “Government Claims Act” is more accurate).

“[Government Code] [s]ection 905 requires the presentation of ‘all claims for money or damages against local public entities,’ subject to exceptions not relevant here.” City of Stockton, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pp. 737–738. Government Code section 945.4 provides that “no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented ... until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon ... or has been deemed to have been rejected....” “‘Thus, under these statutes, failure to timely present a claim for money or damages to a public entity bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity.’” City of Stockton, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 737–738 (quoting State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239).

“Unless a specific exception applies, [a] suit for ‘money or damages’ includes all actions where the plaintiff is seeking monetary relief, regardless of whether the action is founded in tort, contract or some other theory,” Lozada v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1152 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is…. an element of the plaintiff's cause of action.” Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 209 (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1 (2017) 3 C5th 903, 905-906).

Defendant argues that it is a public entity, that Plaintiff’s entire Complaint seeks monetary damages against Defendant, and that Plaintiff has not complied with the claim requirements. As Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, the Court concludes that Plaintiff concedes these points. See Cal Rules of Court, Rule 8.54 (“failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.”).

As the time for presentment of claims has passed, Plaintiff may not cure this defect. See Gov. Code, § 911.2 (“ A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented … not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. A claim relating to any other cause of action shall be presented …. not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action.”); Le Mere v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 237, 247 (“Appellant has not cited nor are we aware of any cases permitting a plaintiff to ‘cure’ her failure to file a prelawsuit claim by filing a postlawsuit claim….”) Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted without leave to amend.