Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV00868, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00868    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      April 23, 2024                                     TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         KELSEY CHAPMAN, an individual, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation, CITY OF LOS ANGELES,  a municipal corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV00868

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant County of Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Kelsey Chapman

SERVICE:                              Filed October 18, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed April 10, 2024

REPLY:                                   Filed April 16, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendant demurrers to Plaintiff’s complaint.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiff Kelsey Chapman’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendants failed to maintain the roads at the intersection of Lake Avenue and Morada Place in Altadena, California. Plaintiff alleges that on May 4, 2022, she was driving her moped when the dangerous condition at the intersection caused her to lose control of her moped, fall, and slide into a parked vehicle. Plaintiff filed this complaint on April 18, 2023, alleging one cause of action for dangerous condition of public property.

TENTATIVE RULING

            The County’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            The County’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c).

LEGAL STANDARD

A general demurrer may be taken to a complaint where “[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc. section 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.)  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 v. Mirda, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Additionally, a special demurrer to a complaint may be brought on the ground the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. Code Civ. Proc section 430.10(f); Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180, 1191.) A demurrer based on uncertainty is disfavored and will be strictly construed even when the pleading is uncertain in some respects. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrers based on uncertainty are “granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

DISCUSSION

            The County of Los Angeles (the “County”) demurrers to Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff’s complaint is untimely.

            Plaintiff alleges that she suffered injuries on May 4, 2022. (Complaint ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that she filed a claim with the County on September 1, 2022, that was deemed insufficient. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff alleges that she filed an amended claim with the County on October 25, 2022, which was also deemed insufficient. (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleges that she filed an application to present a late clam with the County on April 18, 2023. (Id. ¶ 17.)

            The County argues that Plaintiff’s complaint is untimely pursuant to Government Code section 945.6.[1] Section 945.6, subdivision (a)(1), provides that any suit brought against a public entity for which a claim is required must be commenced not later than six months after the date of notice, if notice is given in accordance with Section 913. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she has filed a petition in the related case, case number 23AHCP00445, and that her amended claim sets a new deadline for her to file the present lawsuit.

“Under the Government Claims Act, personal injury claims against public entities generally must be presented to the entity within six months of accrual of the injury. [Citation.] Absent an applicable exception, ‘failure to timely present a claim for money or damages to a public entity bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity.’ ” (Coats v. New Haven Unified School District (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 415, 420.)

            Section 911.2 requires claims relating to “injury to person” to be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Plaintiff’s two initial claims, filed on September 1, 2022, and October 25, 2022 (Complaint ¶¶ 13 and 15) were within 6 months of the alleged incident on May 4, 2022. Plaintiff’s September 1, 2022, claim was deemed insufficient, and the County provided a letter on September 23, 2022, that contained language in accordance with section 913. (RJN Exhibits 1 and 2.) Thus, pursuant to section 945.6, Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on April 18, 2023, over six months after the September 23, 2022, is facially untimely.

            Plaintiff argues that her claims are timely based on her application for leave to present a late claim pursuant to section 911.4 and the amendments allowed for by section 910.6. Plaintiff’s arguments are unavailing. Plaintiff filed her application to file a late claim on April 18, 2023. (Complaint ¶ 17.) However, the language of the applicable statutes calls into question the validity of Plaintiff’s arguments that the deadlines were extended.

            Section 911.4, subdivision (a), provides: “When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within that time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim.” Here, Plaintiff did file an application for leave to present a claim but subsequently filed an application to present a late claim despite the fact that her initial claim was already deemed insufficient.

Further, section 910.6, subdivision (a), provides: “A claim may be amended at any time before the expiration of the period designated in Section 911.2 or before final action thereon is taken by the board, whichever is later, if the claim as amended relates to the same transaction or occurrence which gave rise to the original claim. The amendment shall be considered a part of the original claim for all purposes.” Here, Plaintiff attempted to amend the claim within the applicable timeframe, but the amended claim was also deemed insufficient. (Complaint ¶ 15.) Plaintiff’s April 18, 2023, application to present a late claim is not an amendment to the September 1, 2022, claim because it was made after the six-month period detailed in section 911.2.

Plaintiff’s argument that the April 18, 2023, application to present a late claim reset the deadline to file the complaint is rejected. Plaintiff failed to timely amend her claim and failed to bring the present case within six months after the initial rejection. It would not make sense to allow Plaintiff to circumvent the statutory framework, after failing to adhere to the statutory deadlines, by filing an “application to present a late claim” when she already made a timely claim presentation.

CONCLUSION

            The County’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

            Moving party to give notice.

Dated:   April 23, 2024                                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org