Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV27324, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff Alicia Stephanie Clark filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles, International Line Builders, Inc., MDU Construction Services Group, Inc., and Maria V. Estrada Family Trust, alleging causes of action for general negligence and premises liability. The complaint alleges that on March 1, 2021, Plaintiff was walking out of Defendants’ business located at 2040 Marengo Street, Los Angeles, CA 90033, when she tripped and fell into a pothole and was injured.

On October 21, 2024, Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings. On November 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On November 15, 2024, Defendant filed a reply.

Defendant requests the court take judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s claim for damages, (2) Defendant’s Rejection of Plaintiff’s claim, mailed on February 22, 2022 and (C) Plaintiff’s complaint in this action, filed on August 23, 2022.

The request is unopposed and granted. (Evid. Code § 452(c)-(d).) The court notes it is not taking judicial notice of the truth within the documents, but rather is taking judicial notice of the filing and contents of the government claim. (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 369-70 n. 1; see also Fowler v. Howell (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1746, 1752-53.)

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint or the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438 subd. (c)(1)(B).) A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. Except as provided by statute, the rules governing demurrers apply. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)

In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, courts consider whether properly pled factual allegations—assumed to be true and liberally construed—are sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Stone Street Capital, LLC v. Cal. State Lottery Com’n (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 109, 116.)

The motion is accompanied by the declaration of Carol Attarian, which establishes that the meet and confer requirements were met. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 439(a).)

Government Code § 945.5 provides, “No suit for damages may be maintained against a public entity unless the claim has been presented to it.”

Government Code § 911.2(a) states, “[a] claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” Government Code § 945.6 provides in relevant part:

(a) Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6 and subject to subdivision (b), any suit brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division must be commenced:

(1) If written notice is given in accordance with Section 913, not later than six months after the date such notice is personally delivered or deposited in the mail.

“Government Code § 945.6 is a statute of limitation.” (Cole v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1, 3; see also Dowell v. Contra Costa County (2013) 928 F.Supp.2d 1137, 1152 [“Under § 945.6, if the board delivers written notice of its decision to the complainant, the complainant has six months to file a civil suit … This functions as a statute of limitations.”].) “It is well established by case law that the six-month limitation period in Government Code section 945.6 starts to run when the notice of rejection has been either personally served or deposited in the mail.” (Cole, 177 Cal.App.3d at 4.)

Here, Defendant avers that Plaintiff presented her claim for damages on September 3, 2021, which was rejected on February 22, 2022, and thus, Defendant contends that Plaintiff was required to file her complaint by August 22, 2022, which is six months after the rejection. Defendant contends that because Plaintiff did not file the complaint until August 23, 2022, one day later, the complaint is untimely and barred by the six-month statute of limitations of Government Code § 945.6.

The judicially noticeable evidence establishes that Plaintiff presented a claim for injuries concerning the underlying incident to Defendant, and that Defendant mailed a notice of rejection on February 22, 2022. (Request for Judicial Notice Exhs. A-B.) Consequently, Plaintiff was required to file her action not later than six months after the notice of rejection was deposited in the mail. (Gov. Code § 945.6(a)(1); see also Cole v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1, 4 [“It is well established by case law that the six-month limitation period in Government Code section 945.6 starts to run when the notice of rejection has been either personally served or deposited in the mail and the time is not extended five additional days by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013.”].)

However, the six-month limitation period of Government Code § 945.6 means six calendar months, or 182 days, whichever is longer. (Gonzales v. County of Los Angeles (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 601, 603.) In this case, 182 days is longer than six calendar months. As such, 182 days from February 22, 2022, is August 23, 2022, the very date the complaint was filed. Thus, the complaint was timely filed.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court