Judge Jill Feeney, Case 22STCV23747 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for liability for a dangerous condition on public property, vicarious liability, premises liability, and negligence arising from a trip and fall incident which took place on August 1, 2022. Plaintiff Roohi Cohanim filed his Complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and West LA Farmer’s Market on July 22, 2022.

City alleges that Plaintiff’s claim filed with City was untimely because it was filed more than 236 days after the accrual of his cause of action, which falls after the six-month deadline for Plaintiff to file a claim. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against City are time barred.

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 via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “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, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

Judicial notice of matters upon demurrer will be dispositive only in those instances where there is not or cannot be a factual dispute concerning that which is sought to be judicially noticed. (Cruz v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1131, 1134.)

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 430.41.)

City’s Request for Judicial of the Government Claim filed by Plaintiff and received by City on February 10, 2020, is GRANTED. See Gong v. City of Rosemead, 226 Cal. App. 4th 363, 368 n.1 (2014) (“The court may take judicial notice of the filing and contents of a government claim, but not the truth of the claim.”)

City moves for demurrer the grounds that failed failed to comply with the claims presentation of the Government Torts Claims Act by filing his claim with City more than six months after the accrual of his cause of actions.

A plaintiff seeking to sue a public entity for money or damages must first present a government claim to that public entity within six months after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov’t Code § 905; § 915, subd. (d); § 911.2, subd. (a).) A claim presented must include:

(f) The amount claimed if totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case.

No suit for money damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action if no government claim has first been presented and acted upon by the governing body of the local public entity (the “Board”) or has been deemed rejected. (Gov’t Code, §§ 900.2; 945.4.)

The Board must act within 45 days of receiving a claim, and if the Board fails or refuses to do so, then the claim is deemed to have been rejected by the Board on the last day of the period within which the Board was required to act on that claim. (Gov’t Code, § 912.4, subds. (a), (b).)

If a claim is rejected, the notice of rejection must include specific language, including a warning that the claimant generally only has six months from the date the notice is personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action. (Gov’t Code, § 913, subds. (a), (b).) If a rejection notice is mailed or personally delivered in accordance with Section 913, then a suit against a public entity must be filed not later than six months after the date on the rejection notice. (Gov’t Code, § 945.6, subd. (a).) If notice of the rejection is not properly mailed or personally delivered to the claimant, then the action must be filed within two years from the accrual of the cause of action. (Id.)

A plaintiff may allege compliance with the claims presentation requirement in the Government Claims Act by including a general allegation that he or she timely complied with the claims statute. (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1237.) In pleading the performance of conditions precedent under a statute or an ordinance of a county or municipal corporation, or of a right derived therefrom, it is not necessary to state the facts showing such performance, but it may be stated generally that the party duly performed all the conditions on his part required thereby (Code Civ. Proc., § 459.)

Here, Plaintiff’s Compliant reads in pertinent part: “Prior to the filing of this action, Plaintiff has presented a claim to this governmental entity. Plaintiff believes in good faith that the claims have been denied, or have not been acted upon, acknowledged, or responded to in any way.”

Although Plaintiff is not required to state facts showing compliance with the Government Torts Claims Act in his Complaint, he must allege that he timely complied with the claims statute.