Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV23031, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23031    Hearing Date: January 30, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

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.)

Discussion

Government Code section 911.2 provides, in relevant part, that “[a] claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person … shall be presented … not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” (Ibid.) The public entity must respond to the claim within 45 days, or it “shall be deemed to have been rejected” by operation of law on the 45th day unless the parties agree to an extension. (Gov. Code, § 912.4(a), (c).) The public entity must provide written notice of its response. (Gov. Code, § 913(a).)

If notice is given, Plaintiff has six months to file suit. (Gov. Code, § 945.6(a)(1).) The Government Tort Claims Act’s six-month statute of limitations is “mandatory and must be strictly complied with.” (Cole v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1, 5.) Failure to comply with the Act's mandatory requirement to timely file suit within six months of service of the rejection notice precludes recovery. (See, e.g., Smith v. City and County of San Francisco (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 227 [summary judgment affirmed where plaintiff filed six months and one day after the public entity deposited the rejection notice in the mail].)

Here, Plaintiff presented a claim to Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority on November 6, 2021. (Complaint, ¶ 11.) The Court takes judicial notice of Metro’s rejection of Plaintiff’s claim, attached as Exhibit B to Defendant’s request for judicial notice, under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c). The proof of service of the rejection letter showed that it was sent on February 8, 2022. Because Metro rejected Plaintiff’s claim on February 8, 2022, Plaintiff had six months to file the Complaint against Metro, or until August 8, 2022. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on September 25, 2023—more than one year after the expiration of the limitations period. Accordingly, Plaintiff is barred by the statute of limitations from pursuing the claim against Metro and the 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.