Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV08489, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV08489 Hearing Date: March 16, 2023 Dept: 28
Defendant City of Los Angeles’s Demurrer; Plaintiff Silvia Emily Aguirre’s Motion for Relief to File a Late Government Claim
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff Silvia Emily Aguirre (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Inglewood, CA (“Inglewood”) for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Los Angeles”).
On August 1, 2022, the Court dismissed Inglewood, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.
On December 6, 2022, Los Angeles filed a Demurrer to be heard on January 19, 2023. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to February 14, 2023.
On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief to File a Late Government Claim to be heard on February 14, 2023.
Trial is scheduled for September 6, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Los Angeles requests the Court sustain demurrer, without leave to amend, on the basis that Plaintiff failed to file a timely claim for damages under the applicable GC.
Plaintiff requests the Court grant leave to file a late government claim.
LEGAL STANDARD
CCP § 430.10 states: “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue; (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible; and (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.”
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.)
Government Code § 945.4 states “except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no 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 in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this division.”
“The court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 if the court finds that the application to the board under Section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6 and that one or more of the following is applicable: (3) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss was a minor during any of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim, provided the application is presented within six months of the person turning 18 years of age or a year after the claim accrues, whichever occurs first.” Government Code § 946.6 (c). Generally, an action is considered to be accrued when it occurs, or, under special circumstances, when the Plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action. K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 1242.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s complaint allegedly arises out of an incident that took place on July 8, 2021. In order to bring a claim against a government entity, a claim must be brought within 6 months of accrual of the action, or a party must make an application for leave to present said claim within 1 year of accrual of the action. Plaintiff filed a claim with Los Angeles on either July 15, 2022, or July 19, 2022—each party provided different dates, but both agree that it was after the one-year mark of the subject incident. The one-year limitation on a leave to file a late claim is mandatory. Plaintiff cannot present an actionable case against Los Angeles.
The Court sustains the demurrer and denies Plaintiff’s motion.
CONCLUSION
Defendant City of Los Angeles’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.
Plaintiff Silvia Emily Aguirre’s Motion for Relief to File a Late Government Claim 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.