Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV19232, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19232    Hearing Date: January 6, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

Defendant City of Los Angeles moves the Court for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that the present action was filed after the statute of limitations expired under the Government Claims Act. The pertinent timeline is as follows:

• May 9, 2022 – Auto accident allegedly involving Plaintiff and Defendant occurred.
• May 23, 2022 – Plaintiff submitted a Government Claim to the City of Los Angeles.
• June 2, 2022 – The City of Los Angeles rejected Plaintiff’s Government Claim and provided notice of the six-month statute of limitations for filing a complaint.
• December 2, 2022 – Deadline for Plaintiff to file a complaint (six months after rejection of Government Claim). August 11, 2023 – Plaintiff filed the complaint.

Legal Standard¿¿¿ 

A defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made after the time to demur has expired and an answer has been filed. (CCP § 438(f).) A motion by a defendant may be made on the grounds that (1) the court “lacks jurisdiction of the subject of one or more of the causes of action alleged” or (2) the complaint or cross-complaint “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (CCP § 438(c).)¿¿¿ 

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings has 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.) “A motion for judgment on the pleadings is akin to a general demurrer; it tests the sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action.” (Wise v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 725, 738.)¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿      In a demurrer, a court generally confines itself to the pleading but, as appropriate, may extend its consideration to matters subject to judicial notice. “[W]hen the allegations of the complaint contradict or are inconsistent with such facts, we accept the latter and reject the former. We give the same precedence to facts evident from exhibits attached to the pleading. (Hill v. Roll Internat. Corp. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1300.)¿ Furthermore, any allegations that are contrary to the law or to a fact of which judicial notice may be taken will be treated as a nullity. (Interinsurance Exchange v. Narula (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1143; Fundin v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 951, 955.) 

Government Claims Act 

Under the Government Claims Act, the general rule is that any party with a claim for money or damages against a public entity must first file a claim directly with that entity; only if that claim is denied or rejected may the claimant file a lawsuit. (Gov’t Code §§ 905, 945.4; City of Ontario v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 894.)¿ This provides the public entity with an opportunity to evaluate the claim and make a determination as to whether it will pay on the claim.¿ (Roberts v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 474.)¿ Failure to timely file a tort claim renders the complaint subject to demurrer.¿ ¿(V.C. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.¿(2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 499, 509—affirming trial court decision to sustain demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that V.C.'s failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Tort Claims Act barred her action.)¿ 

¿       Where a public entity provides written notice that a claim has been rejected, the claimant has six months from the date the notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file suit.¿ (Gov’t Code § 945.6(a)(1).)¿¿¿  The statute of limitations imposed by section 945.6 is mandatory and must be strictly complied with. (Cole v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 1, 5.) If the claimant fails to commence an action within the time period prescribed by section 945.6, the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief, and dismissal of the action is required. (Id.)

Judicial Notice 

        Defendant County of Los Angeles’s request for judicial notice is granted. (Cal. Evid. Code § 452.) The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Government Claim for Damages, C22-20159, dated May 23, 2022, and Defendant City of Los Angeles’s Rejection of Claim, C22-20159, dated June 2, 2022.

Discussion

The incident alleged in the complaint occurred on May 9, 2022. On May 23, 2022, Plaintiff presented a Government Claim for damages to the City. (RJN, Exh. A.) On June 2, 2022, the City rejected the claim and provided written notice advising Plaintiff of the six-month statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit, as required by Government Code § 913. (RJN, Exh. B.) On August 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed the complaint, well beyond the six-month limitations period mandated by Government Code § 945.6(a)(1). The complaint is jurisdictionally barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff also did not file an opposition to contest Defendant’s request for judicial notice or the timeline presented by Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

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’s 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.