Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case 19STCV45754 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 19STCV45754, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

        If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Case Number: 19STCV45754 Hearing Date: April 20, 2023 Dept: 28

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On December 20, 2019, Plaintiffs Cheraya Johnson (“Johnson”), Bydon Pass (“Pass”), Amiri Green (“Green”), Brynean Ross (“Brynean”) and Bry Azira Ross (“Bry”) filed this action against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. Plaintiffs later amended the complaint to include Defendant Antonio Becerra (“Becerra”).

On February 3, 2020, LACMTA filed an answer.

On October 6, 2022, LACMTA filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on January 12, 2023. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to April 20, 2023.

Trial is scheduled for June 5, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

LACMTA requests the Court grant summary judgment as plaintiffs failed to timely file a governmental tort claim pursuant to GC § 911.2.

LEGAL STANDARD

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or

claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) CCP § 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

Government Code § 911.2 states: “(a) 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 as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) 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 as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action.”

DISCUSSION

This action stems from a March 18, 2019, motor vehicle accident, between Plaintiffs and LACMTA’s vehicle.

GC § 911.2(a) mandates that prior to filing a suit against a government entity, a plaintiff must first file a tort claim with the subject government entity. Green, Bry and Brynean did not

file their tort claims until September 8, 2021, over two years after the incident. Ross never filed a claim.

Green, Bry and Brynean were all minors at the time of the incident; the Court is unaware if they are still minors. There are potential exceptions to the six-month requirement to file a government claim for minors. Under Cal. Gov. Code § 946.6, a minor may file an application for relief from the Government Tort Claims Act and to file a late claim, if the person was a minor during a portion of or the entire initial six-month filing period. If a claimant was only a minor for a portion of that time, the six months begins to run from when they reach the age of majority or within a year of accrual of the claim, whichever occurs first. If a claimant was a minor for the entirety of that six-month period, it must be made within a year of accrual of the claim. In either scenario, the government entity cannot reject claim purely on the basis that it is untimely.

All relevant claims were filed more than two years after the action accrued. No party filed a motion for relief from the requirements of the Government Claims Act. The causes of action for these parties are barred by GC § 911.2(a). The Court grants summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Summary Judgment is granted as to the actions asserted by Bydon Pass, Amiri Green, Brynean Ross and Bry Azira Ross.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.