Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case Number: 24STCV26303, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

This is a personal injury case. Plaintiff Elise Davis (Plaintiff) alleges that, as a result of Defendant Southern California Regional Rail Authority’s (Defendant Metrolink) negligence, she was injured on October 10, 2022. The form Complaint contains causes of action for motor vehicle and negligence.

On January 21, 2025, Defendant Metrolink demurred to the Complaint. Plaintiff opposed the demurrer. No reply was filed.

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

Defendant Metrolink demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to allege compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act.[1]

““ ‘[N]o 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 ....” (Gov. Code, § 945.4.) “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.” [Citation.]’ ” (DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 990 [quoting City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 737-738].)

“Generally, this claim presentation requirement is an element of a valid cause of action against a public entity.” (Campbell v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 151, 153.) “Thus, a complaint failing to allege facts demonstrating timely presentation of a claim or that such presentation was excused is subject to a general demurrer for not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Willis v. City of Carlsbad (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1104, 1119.)

In opposition, Plaintiff also argues that she substantially complied with the Government Claims Act. She states that she timely submitted a claim to Metrolink’s previous address. (Javaherizadeh Decl., ¶ 1.) She also states that Metrolink changed its address but failed to provide proper notice as required by Government Code section 915, subdivision (a). Plaintiff also argues that Metrolink waived its claim defense to challenge Plaintiff’s Tort Claim compliance by failing to notify Plaintiff of any defects as required by Government Code section 910.8. (Dem., 4:24.)

All of these opposition arguments are outside the scope of the pleadings. As such, the Court cannot consider these arguments on demurrer.

Rather, “[a] plaintiff may allege compliance with the claims requirements by including a general allegation that he or she timely complied with the claims statute.” (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374; Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1237 [plaintiff's allegation that she “filed a timely claim complying with the required claims statute” and complied “with the requirements of the government tort claim statute” sufficed against a demurrer].) The Fifth District Court of Appeal has held that a checked box on a Judicial Council form suffices. (Esparza v. Kaweah Delta Dist. Hospital (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 547, 554-555 [following Perez and holding general allegation of compliance with Act was not contradicted by allegation plaintiff served the claim on defendant on or at a specific date].)

Here, however, Paragraph 9 of the Judicial Council form Complaint is blank. (Compl., ¶ 9.) Further, there are no other specific allegations alleging compliance with the Government Tort claims Act in the Complaint. Thus, the Complaint fails to allege compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act – a necessary element of Plaintiff’s claims.

The demurrer to the Complaint is sustained. Plaintiff shall have leave to amend. An amended pleading shall be filed and served on or before March 27, 2025.

[1] As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff also contends the opposition was untimely filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.40, subd. (a).) Plaintiff represents that she served Defendant Metrolink with the Complaint on December 6, 2024; however, Defendant did not file its demurrer until January 21, 2025 -- 46 days later.

The trial court has discretion to consider untimely demurrers and may enlarge the time for filing a demurrer “so long as its action does ‘not affect the substantial rights of the parties.’ “ (McAllister v. County of Monterey (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 253, 281–282.) In fact, courts generally have discretion to consider late-filed pleadings. (See, e.g., Gitmed v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 824, 828 [a court has discretion to strike an amended complaint that is not timely filed after a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend]; Iverson v. Superior Court (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 544, 549 [holding court had discretion to consider tardy opposition filings]; Avila v. Chua (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 860, 865–869 [court had discretion to grant relief from summary judgment when opposition not timely filed due to mistake of counsel].)

Here, there is no evidence or argument that suggests that allowing this late filed demurrer to be heard will impact Plaintiff’s substantial rights. Thus, the Court will consider this untimely demurrer.

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58