Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV21603, Date: 2024-06-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21603    Hearing Date: June 17, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff Enrique Garcia Pina (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) for injuries sustained on his bicycle. Plaintiff alleges the injury took place on June 22, 2021. On September 19, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

However, on September 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Order from Relief from Claim Statute. This was assigned case number 22STCV29193. The petition sought relief from the claims statute for Plaintiff’s claim that accrued on June 22, 2021. This case was assigned to Department 30 in the Spring Street Courthouse. Defendant filed an opposition on November 2, 2022.

On December 11, 2023, Defendant filed a notice of related case in department 32 for 22STCV29193. However, this was rejected because there was no notice of related case filed in 22STCV29193. (Notice of Rejection, 12/11/23.)

On March 6, 2024, Department 30 denied Plaintiff’s petition for relief.

In this Court, Defendant now moves for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that after the ruling in Department 30, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state facts to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.

Since the filing of this motion, both cases are now pending in Department 32. On June 11, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for relief from the March 6, 2024 denial and the complaint in case number 22STCV29193 was dismissed with prejudice. (Min. Order, 6/11/24.)

LEGAL STANDARD

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, citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.)  Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.) The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.) 

When the moving party is a defendant, he must demonstrate either of the following exist:  

                                            i.The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint.  

                                          ii.The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)-(ii).)   

“[I]n order for judicial notice to support a motion for judgment on the pleadings by negating an express allegation of the pleading, the notice must be of something that cannot reasonably be controverted…The same is true of evidentiary admissions or concessions.” (Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457, 468.)   

MEET AND CONFER

A motion for judgment on the pleadings must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone, at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439.) Here, the Declaration of Philip C. Allen states that he emailed a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel discussing this motion, but Plaintiff did not respond. (Allen Decl. ¶ 1.) Therefore, the meet and confer requirement has been met.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Court on its own takes judicial notice that Defendant is a public entity as defined by the California Government Code. (Gov. Code § 811.2 [“’Public entity includes . . . a county city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State.”].) The Court also takes judicial notice of the court record and filings in this case and case number 22STCV29193. (Evid. Code § 452(d).)

DISCUSSION

Government Claims Act

Pursuant to the Government Claims Act, a party with a claim for damages against a public entity must first timely present the claim directly with that entity.¿ The party may file a lawsuit only if the public entity denies or rejects the claim (either expressly or by operation of law). (Gov. Code §§ 905, 945.4; City of Ontario v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 894.)¿ The claims presentation requirement provides the public entity with an opportunity to evaluate the claim and decide whether to pay on the claim.¿ (Roberts v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 474.)¿¿¿ 

¿ 

A party must file a claim based on “a cause of action for death or for injury to person” within six months. (Gov. Code, §§ 911.4, 911.2, subd. (a).) A party may apply for leave to present an untimely claim (Govt. Code § 911.4), which the board “shall grant or deny … within 45 days after it is presented to the board. The claimant and the board may extend the period within which the board is required to act on the application by written agreement made before the expiration of the period.” (Gov. Code § 911.6(a).) “The board shall grant the application if one of more of the following is applicable: (1) The failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect and the public entity was not prejudiced in its defense of the claim by the failure to present the claim within the time specified in Section 911.2.” (Gov. Code § 911.6(b).)¿¿  

“If the board fails or refuses to act on an application within the time prescribed by this section, the application shall be deemed to have been denied on the 45^th day or, if the period within which the board is required to act is extended by agreement pursuant to this section, the last day of the period specified in the agreement.” (Gov. Code § 911.6(c).) “In all circumstances, a late claim application is deemed denied after 45 days, even though section 911.6(b)(2) would entitle the [individual] to relief if the application had merit. By placing this limitation on the entity’s time to act, the Legislature ensured that applications would not languish.” (J.M. v. Huntington Beach Union High School Dist. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 648, 653.) 

“If an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4.” (Gov. Code § 946.6(a).) The petition shall show each of the following: (1) the application was denied or deemed denied, (2) the reason for the failure to present a timely claim, and (3) information required in section 910. (Gov. Code § 946.6(b).) “The applicant has six months to seek relief in court ‘after the application to the [entity] is denied or deemed to be denied.’ The six-month period ‘operates as a statute of limitations. It is mandatory, not discretionary.’” (J.M., supra, 2 Cal.5^th at 653 (alterations and emphasis in original, citations omitted).) 

Analysis

Here Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to present a timely tort claim within six months after the date of the accident. Plaintiff ultimately filed a petition with the Court for relief on September 7, 2022. However, because the petition was not filed in the instant case, it was assigned a new case number (22STCV29193). On March 6, 2024, Department 30 denied Plaintiff’s petition, finding that Plaintiff did not address whether the late claim was made in a reasonable time and did not meet his burden in showing excusable neglect. (See 22STCV29193, Min. Order, 3/6/24.)

Plaintiff argues there is no basis for determining the two cases are related. (Opp., 1.)  However, based on Plaintiff’s petition, these cases stem from the same plaintiff and the same injury that occurred on June 22, 2021. Plaintiff’s petition also admitted that a timely claim was not presented to Defendant within six months after the accident.[1] Plaintiff fails to point to any document subject to judicial notice that the claim was timely filed.  

Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from the March 6, 2024 denial was denied on June 11, 2024 and the complaint in case number 22STCV29193 was dismissed with prejudice.

Therefore, because the record shows that Plaintiff did not timely file a claim, and his petition for relief was denied, the action is barred under Government Code section 911.4.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend.

Defendant shall give notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.