Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV30010, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV30010 Hearing Date: February 1, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff Jayme Mae LaPlante (“Plaintiff”), a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem Jenelle Arnold (“Arnold”), filed this action against Defendants Parkia, Inc. (“Parkia”), City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), Anthony Michael Hernandez (“Hernandez”), and Does 1-30 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, negligence per se, wrongful death, and survival action. On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Catalina Partida as Doe 1. On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works as Doe 2, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (“LADWP”) as Doe 3, Julio Cesar Regalado (“Regalado”) as Doe 4, and Ismael ‘S’ Zapata (“Zapata”) as Doe 5. On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant David Claudio (“Claudio”) as Doe 6.
On November 7, 2022, Parkia filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Hernandez and Roes 1-50 for implied indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On November 16, 2022, Hernandez filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. On March 7, 2023, Regalado and Zapata filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. On December 6, 2023, Claudio filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.
On December 27, 2022, the Court dismissed the County without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On April 24, 2023, LADWP filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant Parkia and Roes 1-15 for express indemnity, comparative indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. On June 30, 2023, Parkia filed an answer to LADWP’s cross-complaint.
On June 2, 2023, the City filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. On June 5, 2023, the City filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Parkia and Roes 1-10 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, and express indemnity. On June 30, 2023, Parkia filed an answer to the City’s cross-complaint.
On December 7, 2023, the City filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings to be heard on February 1, 2024. On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On January 25, 2024, the City filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for August 19, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
The City requests that the Court grant its motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Judgment on the pleadings
Code of Civil Procedure section 438 provides in part:
“(b) (1) A party may move for judgment on the pleadings.
* * *
* * *
“(i) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint.
“(ii) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.
“(2) The motion provided for in this section may be made as to either of the following:
“(A) The entire complaint or cross-complaint or as to any of the causes of action stated therein.
* * *
* * *
“(2) Where a motion is granted pursuant to this section with leave to file an amended complaint or answer, as the case may be, then the court shall grant 30 days to the party against whom the motion was granted to file an amended complaint or answer, as the case may be.
“(3) If the motion is granted with respect to the entire complaint or answer without leave to file an amended complaint or answer, as the case may be, then judgment shall be entered forthwith in accordance with the motion granting judgment to the moving party. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subds. (b), (c), (d), (h).)
‘‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and [thus] attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, 274.) “In reviewing the motion, [the Court] deem[s] true all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law, and [the court] may also consider judicially noticed matters. [Citation.]” (Bear Creek Master Assn. v. Southern California Investors, Inc. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 809, 817.)
A motion for judgment on the pleadings “normally lies only for defects fully disclosed on the face of the pleading under attack or by matters of which judicial notice may be taken. Declarations or other extrinsic matters are improper. Therefore, the judge hearing the motion cannot consider discovery admissions or other evidence controverting the pleadings. Rather, the pleading under attack must be accepted as true.” (L. Edmon and C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 7:320, pp. 7(l)-95 to 7(l)-96 (Cal. Practice Guide).)
B. Claim presentation requirement
“Under the Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff may not maintain an action for money or damages against a public entity unless first a written claim has been presented to the public entity and rejected in whole or in part or deemed rejected by operation of law.” (Sofranek v. County of Merced (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1246 (“Sofranek”), quoting Gov. Code, §§ 905, 905.2, 945.4.) “Failure to timely present a claim for money or damages to a public entity bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity.” (Ibid., citing State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1245.) “Before a cause of action may be stated, a plaintiff must allege either compliance with this procedure or circumstances excusing compliance.” (Ibid.)
Under Government Code section 911.2, subdivision (a), “personal injury claims against a local governmental entity must be presented to the entity within six months after accrual of the cause of action . . . .” (Sofranek, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.) Claims relating to other causes of action must be presented within one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Ibid.) A party may amend his or her claim during these time periods if the claim as amended relates to the same transaction or occurrence which gave rise to the original claim, but the amendment “shall be considered a part of the original claim for all purposes.” (Ibid., quoting Gov. Code, § 910.6, subd. (a).) If the governmental entity provides the claimant with written notice of rejection, “the claimant must bring an action against the entity within six months after ‘the date such notice is personally delivered or deposited in the mail.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)(1).) “This six-month deadline ‘is mandatory and must be strictly complied with.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Julian v. City of San Diego (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 169, 176.)
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
The Court grants the City’s request for judicial notice.
DISCUSSION
The City asks the Court to grant judgment on the pleadings because Plaintiff did not comply with the claim presentation requirements of the Tort Claims Act. According to the City, although Arnold (Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem) filed a claim, Arnold’s claim does not satisfy the requirement that Plaintiff submit a claim. Moreover, the City argues, the time for Plaintiff to submit a claim has expired, requiring entry of judgment against Plaintiff.
In response, Plaintiff asserts that the cover letter accompanying Arnold’s claim listed the claimant as “Jenelle Arnold, mother of decedent’s unborn child.” (Okun Dec. ¶ 2 & exh. 1.) This language cannot reasonably be construed as making a claim on Plaintiff’s behalf. It does not inform the City of an intent to sue for wrongful death on Plaintiff’s behalf.
The Court grants the motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with 30 days leave to amend.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.