Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV12059, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12059    Hearing Date: December 2, 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

Plaintiff Elio Vallecillo Rivera (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), the City of Los Angeles (Doe 1), and Does 2 to 20 for damages arising from an alleged failure to secure a ramp. Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action for negligence.

Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) now moves for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. No opposition has been filed.

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.)   

DISCUSSION

Insufficient notice was provided for this motion. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), moving papers must be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. Applying this, 16 court days before the current hearing was November 5, 2024. Additionally, if notice is served electronically, the 16-day notice period is increased by two-court days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(a).) Therefore, notice of this motion was due November 1, 2024 (two court days before November 5, 2024). According to the proof of service, City served this motion electronically on November 6, 2024. Therefore, because notice was not provided within the minimum timeline provided by section 1005, the motion is procedurally defective.   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant City of Los Angeles’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.  

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