Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 22GDCV00629, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 22GDCV00629, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00629 Hearing Date: September 19, 2024 Dept: E

Case No: 22GDCV00629
Hearing Date: 09/19/2024 – 8:30am

Trial Date: UNSET

Case Name: JOHN DOE (K.S.), an individual, v. DOE #1, a public entity; DOE #2, an individual; and DOES 3 – 60 inclusive

[TENTATIVE RULING – MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS]

Moving Party: Defendant, Glendale Unified School District, a public entity

Responding Party: Plaintiff, John Doe K.S.

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Doumanian Declaration; Request for Judicial Notice; Proposed Order;

Opposition Papers: Opposition; Request for Judicial Notice

Reply Papers: No Reply submitted

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300(c)): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP § 1005(b), CRC 3.1300(a)): Ok
Correct Address: (CCP § 1013, § 1013a, § 1013b):Ok

RELIEF REQUESTED
“Defendant Glendale Unified School District, a public entity, will and hereby does move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 438, on the following grounds:

The Complaint for Damages does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant Glendale Unified School District. In this respect, the Complaint admits that Plaintiff did not submit a pre-lawsuit tort claim to the District, such that the District has remained immune from any claim Plaintiff may have wished to make regarding alleged sexual abuse dating back almost 40 years. Plaintiff failed to submit a claim in reliance on the unconstitutional act of the State Legislature embodied in Assembly Bill No. 218 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (“AB 218”), which retroactively abolished the requirement of providing written notice of a claim necessary to overcome the sovereign immunity of the District. AB 218 is unconstitutional because it allows Plaintiff and other claimants to seek compensation from the District and other public entities without a legal basis therefor, such that any sums that Plaintiff might receive would amount to a gift of public funds in contravention of California Constitution Article XVI, section 6. Plaintiff’s lawsuit should therefore be dismissed in its entirety as seeking a gift of public funds in violation of the California Constitution.

Meet and Confer: The Court’s attention is respectfully directed to the declaration of Nancy Doumanian that is filed herewith pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 439, and reflecting the meet and confer between counsel that preceded the filing of this motion.

The motion will be based upon this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Nancy Doumanian, the evidentiary exhibits lodged and filed herewith, all records and pleadings on file with this Court, all evidence of which the court may take judicial notice, and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this motion.”

(Def. Notice, p. i-ii.)

PROCEDURAL

Meet and Confer
Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc. § 439(a).)

“A determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (CCP §439(a)(4).)

Here, Defendant’s counsel met and conferred. (See Doumanian Decl. ¶¶ 1-3.)

LEGAL STANDARD – MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
If moving party is a defendant, a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made if either of the following conditions exist: (1) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint, or (2) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant. (CCP § 438(c)(1)(B).)

“The grounds for motion provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. Where the motion is based on a matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, the matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit.” (CCP § 438(d).)

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself. [Citation.]” (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 877.) “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 (citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216).)

TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff filed the instant action on 9/26/2022 alleging causes of action for : (1) Childhood Sexual Abuse, (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (3) Negligence Based on Government Code Sections 815.2 and 820, (4) Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse, (5) Negligent Supervision of a Minor, and (6) Negligence.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s entire lawsuit should be dismissed because AB 218 is unconstitutional because it allows Plaintiff and other claimants to seek compensation from the District and other public entities without a legal basis therefor, such that any sums that Plaintiff might receive would amount to a gift of public funds in contravention of California Constitution Article XVI, section 6.

The Court does not find Defendant’s argument availing.

Plaintiff’s opposition directed the Court to the First District Court of Appeal’s ruling in West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1243.

As stated in the First District Court of Appeal’s ruling:

As we explain, waiver of the claim presentation requirement did not constitute an expenditure of public funds that may be considered a “gift” because AB 218 did not create new “substantive liability” (Quigley, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 813, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 548, 444 P.3d 688) for the underlying alleged wrongful conduct. Instead, AB 218 simply waived a condition the state had imposed on its consent to suit. (Quigley, at pp. 811–813, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 548, 444 P.3d 688; Chapman v. State (1894) 104 Cal. 690, 697, 38 P. 457 (Chapman).)

(West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1243, 323 Cal.Rptr. 3d 904, 913, review filed (Sept 9, 2024).)

Therefore, in light of West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1243, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. The Court notes that Defendant did not file a Reply.

Defendant’s requests for judicial notice are granted.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted.