Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Svetlana Shapolavola fell while trying to exit a bus operated by Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”).  Plaintiff claims that as she was exiting the bus, and while she had one leg out of the bus, the bus proceeded to move forward.  Plaintiff claims she fell on top of the concrete sidewalk, suffering severe injuries.  The operative complaint alleges a single claim of negligence.   

This hearing is on MTA’s demurrer to the complaint.  The MTA argues that Plaintiff’s entire complaint is subject to demurrer because (1) Plaintiff failed to file a suit within the time limits established by Gov. Code § 945.6, (2) Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing compliance with or excuse from the procedural requirements of the California Tort Claims Act, and (3) Plaintiff alleges a common law claim for negligence, and Gov. Code § 815 bars all common law liability against a public entity.  There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.       

LEGAL STANDARD 

A demurrer to a complaint may be special or general.¿ A special demurrer challenges other defects in the complaint, including whether a pleading is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)¿ The term uncertain means “ambiguous and unintelligible.”¿ (Id.)¿ A demurrer for uncertainty should be sustained if the complaint is drafted in such a manner that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., the defendant cannot determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts are directed against the defendant. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)¿ 

A general demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint on the ground it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (e); Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  A general demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.  (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 (in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents).)  For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)  

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”); Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 (“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”).)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 

MEET AND CONFER 

Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41 requires that before the filing of a demurrer the moving party “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone” with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a).)  The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(2).)  Thereafter, the moving party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(3).)  MTA submits the Declaration of Ninos Saroukhanioff, which shows counsel attempted to meet and confer by telephone but was not able to do so due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond.  In any event, the Court cannot sustain or overrule a demurrer based on an insufficient meet and confer.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(4).)     

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

 The City requests judicial notice of (1) a Claim for Damages No. C4D2021167608 filed on behalf of Plaintiff with the MTA, and (2) the written denial of Plaintiff’s government claim issued and mailed by the MTA on July 13, 2022.  The documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s compliance with the claims presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act.  The Court grants the request pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code §§ 452(c) and 453.   

Section 452(c) authorizes judicial notice of official acts of any state of the United States, which includes the records of a public entity.  The claim and denial are official records of a public entity.  (Corado v. City of L.A., 2022 Cal. Super. Lexis 21692 at *7¿(taking¿judicial notice of a plaintiff’s¿government claim form).)  Further, judicial notice is mandatory under § 453 where as here, the requesting party gives the adverse party notice of the request and furnishes the Court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice.   

DISCUSSION 

MTA argues that Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred under the Government Claims Act.  The Court agrees. 

The timeliness of actions against public entities is governed by the specific statute of limitations set forth in the Government Code.  (Moore v. Toomey (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 910, 913-914.)  ¿Claims related to personal injury must be presented to the public entity no later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.  (Gov. Code § 911.2.)  Further, Gov. Code § 945.6¿requires “any suit brought against a public entity” to be commenced no more than six months after the public entity rejects the claim.¿(Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)(1).)¿ A civil action is “commenced” by filing a complaint with the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 411.10.)¿ 

Here, Plaintiff alleges the subject incident occurred on March 5, 2021.  (Compl. p. 4.)  Six months from the date of the incident is September 5, 2021.  Plaintiff did not present her claim until September 13, 2021.  (Ex. A to Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”).)  Accordingly, her claim is untimely.   

Further, a written denial of Plaintiff’s government claim was issued and mailed by the MTA on July 13, 2022.  (Ex. B to RJN.)  Six months from the denial of Plaintiff’s claim is January 13, 2023.  The instant lawsuit was filed on April 14, 2023.  Thus, Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred for this additional reason.   

Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer.  Also, the Court does so without leave to amend, as there is no reasonable possibility that Plaintiff could cure defects associated with a statute of limitations defense.  Further, given the Court’s ruling, it declines to consider the other arguments raised in favor of the demurrer.       

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court SUSTAINS the MTA’s demurrer to the complaint, without leave to amend.   

 

DATED:  February 21, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court