Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV21615, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21615    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is a premises liability action. On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff Aurora Mora (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Allen Properties, LLC, Walnut Park Apartments (collectively, Defendants) and Does 1 to 50, alleging causes of action for premises liability and general negligence. On May 17, 2023, Defendants filed an answer.

On October 16, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings. On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff opposed the motion. On November 9, 2023, Defendants replied.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings when the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subds. (b)(1), (c)(1)(B)(ii).)

A motion for judgment on the pleadings tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and is analyzed in all material respects as though it were a demurrer. (Wise v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 725, 738; Kapsimallis v. Allstate Insurance Co. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 667, 672.)

“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. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999 [citations omitted].)

III.        DISCUSSION

Preliminary Issue

The Court notes that Defendants’ reply was filed on November 9, 2023, which is a day late based on the November 16, 2023 hearing date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) The Court exercises its discretion to still consider the reply, but admonishes Defendants to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure going forward. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d); Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202.)

Meet and Confer

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 439, the parties were required to meet and confer in person or telephonically before bringing this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439.) Although Defendants failed to attach a meet and confer declaration to their moving papers, they did attach one to their reply papers in response to Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants failed to properly meet and confer. (Ness Decl., ¶ 2.) The Court finds this sufficient.

Analysis

The statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1; Aguilera v. Heiman (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 590, 596; see also A. Demurrers, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 7(I)-A [“Where the dates alleged in the complaint show the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations, a general demurrer lies.”])

Defendants asserted the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in their Answer. (Answer (5/17/23), 17th Affirmative Defense.) Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s causes of action for premises liability and general negligence are time-barred per Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. The Court agrees.

The facts supporting Defendants’ statute of limitations defense is apparent from the face of the operative Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the date of her injury was January 3, 2020. (Compl., Prem.L-1, GN-1.) Plaintiff filed this action on July 5, 2022. Defendants contend that, even accounting for the 178-day extension provided under Emergency Rule 9 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the latest Plaintiff could have filed this action was June 30, 2022. (See Emergency Rule 9, subd. (a).) The Court finds this calculation to be correct, as two years plus 178 days from January 3, 2020 is June 30, 2022. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 12, 335.1, Emergency Rule 9.)

The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s opposition does not dispute that these claims are time-barred. The Court construes such lack of opposition as a concession that Defendants’ arguments are meritorious. (Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 418; C. Opposing the Motion—and Rebutting the Opposition, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(I)-C, ¶ 9:105.10.)

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to allege a cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability, Plaintiff has not explained why she has waited 16 months to raise this new cause of action. (See Le Mere v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 237, 245 [finding no abuse of discretion when the plaintiff failed to explain 14-month delay in raising a new cause of action in amended pleading].) Without any such explanation, the Court finds granting leave to amend to be unwarranted.  Further, the statute of limitations for that claim appears to have also run at this point.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 15^th day of November 2023