Judge Keri G. Katz, Case 37-2023-00008066-CU-OE-CTL 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Keri G. Katz, Case: 37-2023-00008066-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 31, 2023

09/01/2023 08:30:00 AM C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Keri Katz

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other employment Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00008066-CU-OE-CTL CRAIG VS TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court addresses the evidentiary issues. The request for judicial notice by Defendant Tri-City Healthcare District dba Tri-City Medical Center is GRANTED. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Defendant is a public entity. (Evid. Code, § 452(h).) Plaintiff Irene Craig's request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to Exhibit A. While the Court may take judicial notice of the existence of the document, it does not take judicial notice of its interpretation. (See C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1104 ('the general rule is that the truthfulness and interpretation of a document's contents are disputable'). Plaintiff's request for judicial notice of Exhibit B is DENIED. Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that this exhibit is not reasonably subject to dispute and is 'capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.' (Evid. Code, § 452(h).) The basis for a demurer must appear on the face of the complaint or from any matter of which the court takes judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30.) As a preliminary matter, the court notes that matters outside the pleadings, for which judicial notice has not been sought and granted, cannot be considered for purposes of ruling on the instant demurrer. Thus, the court disregards several exhibits submitted in support of the demurrer, in opposition, and in reply. (ROA # 9, Faizai Decl., Exhs. A-E; ROA # 31, Hoodecheck Dec., Exh. C; ROA #34, at Faizai Reply Decl., Exhs. A-B.) The court then rules as follows. Defendant's Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) mental condition and/or physical disability discrimination, (2) failure to prevent discrimination, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process, and (4) failure to provide reasonable accommodation.

Defendant demurs to the entire Complaint on the ground that each cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e).) Demurrer A 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. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) The face of the pleading includes matters shown in exhibits attached to the pleading and incorporated by reference. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94; Dodd v. Citizens Bank of Costa Mesa (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2959535 1 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: CRAIG VS TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER [IMAGED] 37-2023-00008066-CU-OE-CTL 1624, 1627.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no 'speaking demurrers'). (Ion Equip.

Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.) A demurrer is treated 'as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.]' (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) The complaint must be liberally construed and given a reasonable interpretation, with a view to substantial justice between the parties. (Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140–141.) Claims Presentation Requirements Under the Government Claims Act Defendant contends its demurrer to the Complaint should be sustained without leave to amend, because Plaintiff has not and cannot plead compliance with the claims presentation requirements under the Government Claims Act.

The parties do not dispute that Defendant is a public entity. With certain exceptions not applicable here, 'all claims for money or damages against local public entities' require the timely presentation of a claim in accordance with the Government Claims Act. (Govt. Code §§ 905, 911.2, 945.4.) Govt. Code § 915 provides: (a) A claim, any amendment thereto, or an application to the public entity for leave to present a late claim shall be presented to a local public entity by any of the following means: (1) Delivering it to the clerk, secretary or auditor thereof.

(2) Mailing it to the clerk, secretary, auditor, or to the governing body at its principal office.

(3) If expressly authorized by an ordinance or resolution of the public entity, submitting it electronically to the public entity in the manner specified in the ordinance or resolution.

. . . .

(e) claim, amendment, or application shall be deemed to have been presented in compliance with this section even though it is not delivered or mailed as provided in this section if, within the time prescribed for presentation thereof, any of the following apply: (1) It is actually received by the clerk, secretary, auditor, or board of the local public entity.

. . . .

(Govt. Code, § 915, emphasis added.) A complaint against a public entity must allege compliance with the Government Claims Act or circumstances excusing compliance. (State v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1245).

Compliance with the Government Claims Act 'is a condition precedent to a tort action and the failure to present the claim bars the action.' (Id. at 1240.) 'It is well-settled that claims statutes must be satisfied even in face of the public entity's actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim. Such knowledge – standing alone – constitutes neither substantial compliance nor basis for estoppel.' (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 455.) 'A plaintiff may allege compliance with the claims requirements by including a general allegation that he or she timely complied with the claims statute. If the plaintiff fails to include the necessary allegations, the complaint is subject to attack by demurrer.' (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374, citations omitted.) The Complaint alleges: Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2959535 1 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: CRAIG VS TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER [IMAGED] 37-2023-00008066-CU-OE-CTL Plaintiff filed a Government Tort Claim for Damages/Injury to Person Against Tri-City Medical Center with Proof of Service, pursuant to Cal Gov't Code § 910 et seq, on October 4, 2022, attached hereto as 'Exhibit B.' (ROA #1, Complaint, ¶ 14.) As plead, the Complaint only alleges that Plaintiff 'filed' the claim. Contrary to Plaintiff's arguments, she has not sufficiently plead compliance with the Government Claims Act. Absent from the Complaint are the requisite allegations that Plaintiff's claim was presented to or actually received by the individuals designated in Govt. Code § 915(a) or (e)(1) and that Plaintiff's claim was timely. The copy of the claim attached as Exhibit B does not include a proof of service and is only addressed to 'Tri-City Medical Center, 4002 Vista Way, Oceanside, California 92056.' (Complaint, Exhibit B, pp. 1, 6.) Exhibit B to the Complaint thus does not indicate the individuals designated in Govt. Code § 915(a) or (e)(1) were presented with or actually received the claim. Without such allegations, the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish compliance with the claims presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act.

The court is not persuaded by Plaintiff's argument that although the claim was not served on Defendant's clerk, secretary, auditor, or governing body, the claim was presented to Defendant when its general counsel accepted personal service of the claim and purportedly confirmed there was no issue with the claim. This argument concerns matters outside the allegations in the Complaint. Additionally, the authority Defendant relies on, DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983 (DiCampli-Mintz), is clear – presentation of a claim to someone other than the statute's designated recipients is insufficient to satisfy the claims presentation requirement of Govt. Code § 915. In DiCampli-Mintz, the California Supreme Court explains: Section 915(a)(1) reflects the Legislature's intent to precisely identify those who may receive claims on behalf of a local public entity. Section 915(e)(1) reflects the Legislature's intent that a misdirected claim will satisfy the presentation requirement if the claim is 'actually received' by a statutorily designated recipient. Thus, compliance with section 915(e)(1) requires actual receipt of the misdirected claim by one of the designated recipients. If an appropriate public employee or board never receives the claim, an undelivered or misdirected claim fails to comply with the statute. (Life, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at p. 901, 278 Cal.Rptr. 196.) This straightforward construction honors the statutory language and is consistent with the purpose of the claims statutes.

DiCampli-Mintz, supra, 55 Cal.4th at 992–993.

Thus, even if the Complaint alleged service or presentation of the claim on Defendant's general counsel, this would be insufficient to allege compliance under Govt. Code § 915. (DiCampli-Mintz, supra, 55 Cal.4th at 992–993; see also Life v. County of Los Angeles (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 894, 900 [presentation of a claim to the 'legal department' constitutes substantial compliance with § 915 only if the misdirected claim were 'actually received by the clerk, secretary, auditor or board of the local public entity' within the prescribed time].) Absent establishing compliance with the claims presentation requirements of Govt. Code § 915, all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant fail. Accordingly, Defendant's demurrer to the Complaint is sustained.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues she substantially complied with the Government Claims Act because Plaintiff mailed the claim to the correct principal office, but Defendant failed to publicly file and list accurate board member information pursuant to Govt. Code § 53051(a). Plaintiff also argues she has been reasonably diligent in presenting her claim, Defendant allegedly changed its position regarding Plaintiff's compliance after the claims period expired, and Defendant allegedly engaged in conduct to prohibit Plaintiff's compliance. Plaintiff further argues she has filed an application to file a late claim addressed to Defendant's board and filed a petition with the court to be excused from the claim Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2959535 1 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: CRAIG VS TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER [IMAGED] 37-2023-00008066-CU-OE-CTL presentation requirement. The court cannot consider these arguments in reviewing the demurrer, as these arguments concern matters outside the Complaint for which judicial notice has not been requested and granted. Nevertheless, Plaintiff's arguments demonstrate a reasonable probability the Complaint can be amended to plead facts to cure this pleading deficiency. Based on Plaintiff's showing and the fact this is the first pleading challenge, the court allows Plaintiff 10 days leave to amend to allege facts establishing compliance with the claims presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act, substantial compliance, or excuse for noncompliance.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2959535 1