Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV41534, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41534    Hearing Date: March 13, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Bruce Steele’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On November 10, 2021, Plaintiff Angelica Yuritzi Contreras Garibay (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Washington State University (“WSU”) and Bruce Steele (“Steele”) for negligence and negligent entrustment. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants Spokane Community College (“SCC”), Community College of Spokane Association for Higher Education (“CCS”), Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC (“RAC”) and Washington State University, Community Colleges of Spokane (“WSU CCS”).

On March 21, 2022, Steele filed an answer.

On April 25, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed WSU, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On January 20, 2023, Steele filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to be heard on March 13, 2023. On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On March 6, 2023, Steele filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 10, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Steele requests the Court grant the motion as Plaintiff failed to comply with the Washington State claim presentation requirements.

LEGAL STANDARD

‘‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and [thus] attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. [Citations.]’  [Citation.]’  [Citation.]”  (Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, 274.)  “In reviewing the motion, [the Court] deem[s] true all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law, and we may also consider judicially noticed matters.  [Citation.]”  (Bear Creek Master Assn. v. Southern California Investors, Inc. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 809, 817.)

According to CCP §439, parties are required to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. “...The moving party shall identify all of the specific allegations that it believes are subject to judgment and identify with legal support the basis of the claims. The party who filed the pleading shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is not subject to judgment, or, in the alternative, how the pleading could be amended to cure any claims it is subject to judgment.” CCP §439(b).

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.)  When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.  (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.)  In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (CCP § 430.30(a).)  A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)  Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.  (Id.)  The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.  (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

Revised Code of Washington 4.92.100 provides that “All claims against the state, or against the state’s officers, employees or volunteers, acting in such capacity, for damages arising out of tortious conduct, must be presented to the office of risk management. A claim is deemed presented when the claim form is delivered in person or by regular mail, registered mail, or certified mail, with return receipt requested, or as an attachment to email or by fax, to the office of risk management. For claims for damages presented after July 26, 2009, all claims for damages must be presented on the standard tort claim form that is maintained by the office of risk management. The standard tort claim form must be posted on the department of enterprise services' website.”

RCW  4.92.110 states “No action subject to the claim filing requirements of RCW 4.92.100 shall be commenced against the state, or against any state officer, employee, or volunteer, acting in such capacity, for damages arising out of tortious conduct until sixty calendar days have elapsed after the claim is presented to the office of risk management in the department of enterprise services. The applicable period of limitations within which an action must be commenced shall be tolled during the sixty calendar day period. For the purposes of the applicable period of limitations, an action commenced within five court days after the sixty calendar day period has elapsed is deemed to have been presented on the first day after the sixty calendar day period elapsed.”

DISCUSSION

Judicial Notice

The Court takes judicial notice of the request documents pursuant to Evidence Code §452.

Judgment on the Pleadings

Plaintiff alleges that Steele, while driving a vehicle for his employer WSU/DOES 6-11, negligently collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. No Defendant has been amended as a DOE 6-11. Plaintiff also states that each Defendant, named or otherwise, was acting as an agent or employee of each other Defendant. Plaintiff also alleges that “prior to the filing of this complaint, [Plaintiff] did present a Government Tort Claim to the State of Washington.”

Steele claims that Plaintiff’s complaint identifies him as an employee of CCS or SCC. The Court finds this to be inaccurate; as stated above, the complaint specifically alleges that WSU or DOES 6-11 were Plaintiff’s employer. CCS and SCC were substituted in as DOES 16 and 17. There is a general statement, otherwise, that all Defendants were employees/agents of other Defendants.

Steele claims that Plaintiff did not mail her tort claim until February 2, 2022, approximately 2 months after the commencement of this action. The Tort Claim specifically identifies “Washington Community Colleges Spokane,” and attributes the injuries to Bruce Steele.

Plaintiff submitted proof that Plaintiff initially filed a claim with the State of Washington on January 21, 2021, which substantially complied with the requirements of RCW 4.92.100, via SCC’S rental insurance. Steele was specifically named as an involved party and a state employee, and Plaintiff is named as the damaged party. Plaintiff’s complaint clearly states she presented a tort claim prior to filing her action. The state of Washington acknowledged receipt of the claim for damages and assigned an investigator to the claim. Washington was effectively put on notice and given proper time to investigate, evaluate and settle claims. Only substantial compliance is necessary under the changes made in 2009 to the applicable laws; Plaintiff’s claim was properly submitted prior to the filing of this action.

Based on the above, the Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Bruce Steele’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

            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.