Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV20342, Date: 2024-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV20342    Hearing Date: November 27, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 12, 2024, Plaintiff Juventino Rojas filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles Unified School District. The complaint asserts (1) negligence, (2) premises liability, and (3) dangerous condition of public property. The action stems from personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff after tripping on a sidewalk.

            On October 28, 2024, Defendant City of Los Angeles filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made on the same grounds as those supporting a general demurrer, i.e., that the pleading fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim or defense. (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.) 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. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1999) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) Judgment on the pleadings must be denied where there are material factual issues that require evidentiary resolution. (Schabarum v. Calif. Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) 

DISCUSSION

            Under the Government Claims Act, “failure to timely present a claim for money or damages to a public entity bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity.” (State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239.) “[F]ailure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action.” (Ibid.)

            “Although a government claim need not contain the detail and specificity required of a pleading in a civil action, it nevertheless must ‘fairly describe what [the] entity is alleged to have done.’” (Hernandez v. City of Stockton (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1222, 1231.) “When a civil action is filed following the rejection of a government claim, it is acceptable for the complaint to elaborate or add further details to a government claim, but the complaint may not completely ‘shift [the] allegations’ and premise liability on facts that fundamentally differ from those specified in the government claim.” (Ibid.) “In other words, the factual basis for recovery in the complaint must be ‘fairly reflected’ in the government claim.” (Ibid.)

            Here, Plaintiff’s government claim alleged the following:

“On or about August 14, 2023, Mr. Rojas was walking on the sidewalk located across from 2217 S. Gramercy Pl, Los Angeles, CA 90018, which was abutting Interstate 10 freeway. As he was lawfully walking, he tripped and fell as a result of an uneven/defected sidewalk, causing him to land directly on his face, left arm and knee.”

(Def.’s RJN, Ex. A.)

            Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the following:

“At all relevant times herein mentioned, Plaintiff was lawfully walking on a sidewalk located at or near Joseph Widney High School, 2302 S. Gramercy Pl, Los Angeles, CA 90018.”   

(Compl. ¶ 2.)

“This lawsuit arises out of a trip and fall incident which occurred on or about August 14, 2023, when Plaintiff tripped and fell as a result of a dangerous condition on the SUBJECT PROPERTY. Specifically, a height discrepancy existed such that Plaintiff tripped on a raised concrete slab, causing serious bodily injury.”

(Id., ¶ 10.)

            Defendant City argues that “Plaintiff’s complaint reflects an entirely different factual basis for recovery because 2217 S. Gramercy Pl., Los Angeles is a different address from 2302 S. Gramercy Pl., Los Angeles, CA 90018.” (Mtn. 5:20-22.) However, clarifying the precise location of the incident does not constitute a complete change in facts. A complaint may “elaborate or add further detail to a claim” as long as “the claim and the complaint . . . are premised on essentially the same foundation.” (Hernandez, supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 1233.) Plaintiff’s complaint is not based “on an entirely different factual basis than that stated in the government claim.” (Id. at p. 1232.) Instead, the foundation of Plaintiff’s complaint remains the trip-and-fall he allegedly suffered due to an uneven sidewalk. The facts in the complaint are “fairly reflected” in the government claim. (Id. at p. 1231.)

CONCLUSION

            Defendant City of Los Angeles’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.