Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV39283, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV39283 Hearing Date: June 6, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Previous proceedings
On December 19, 2022, Plaintiff Ferhat Kavut (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles, Caltrans, and Does 1-50 for negligence.
On March 12, 2025, Defendants The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, erroneously sued as Caltrans, filed an answer.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
B. This motion
On February 24, 2025, the City filed a demurrer and a request for judicial notice. The demurrer was set for hearing on April 3, 2025. On March 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition and objection to the judicial notice request. On March 26, 2025, the City filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to June 6, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
The City asks the Court to sustain the demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint.
Plaintiff asks the Court to overrule the demurrer.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Demurrer
“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint
has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30,
to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:
"(a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.
* * *
“(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (a), (e), (f).)
In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a) [“When any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading”].)
“For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded (i.e., all ultimate facts alleged, but not conclusions, deductions, or conclusions of facts or law).” (L. Edmon and C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 7:43, p. 7(l)-25, emphasis omitted (Cal. Practice Guide).)
B. Claims against government entities
“In California all governmental tort liability must be based on statute.” (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 802, citations and fn. omitted (Lopez).)
“Ordinarily, negligence may be pleaded in general terms and the plaintiff need not specify the precise act or omission alleged to constitute the breach of duty. [Citation.] However, because under the Tort Claims Act all governmental tort liability is based on statute, the general rule that statutory causes of action must be pleaded with particularity is applicable. Thus, ‘to state a cause of action against a public entity, every fact material to the existence of its statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity.’ ” (Lopez, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 795, quoting Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 814, 819.)
C. Time to file action against government entity
Government Code section 945.6 provides:
“(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.
“(2) If written notice is not given in accordance with Section 913, within two years from the accrual of the cause of action. If the period within which the public entity is required to act is extended pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 912.4, the period of such extension is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action under this paragraph.
"(b) When a person is unable to commence a suit on a cause of action described in subdivision (a) within the time prescribed in that subdivision because he has been sentenced to imprisonment in a state prison, the time limit for the commencement of such suit is extended to six months after the date that the civil right to commence such action is restored to such person, except that the time shall not be extended if the public entity establishes that the plaintiff failed to make a reasonable effort to commence the suit, or to obtain a restoration of his civil right to do so, before the expiration of the time prescribed in subdivision (a).
“(c) A person sentenced to imprisonment in a state prison may not commence a suit on a cause of action described in subdivision (a) unless he presented a claim in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division.”
(Gov. Code, § 945.6.)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
The complaint includes the following allegations:
Plaintiff filed a government claim against the City on May 26, 2022. The City has not responded to the claim.
On or about December 1, 2022, Plaintiff was riding a scooter eastbound on 8153 W. 4th Street from the intersection of S. La Jolla Avenue and W 4th Street, in Los Angeles, California 90048. Plaintiff fell from the scooter due to a very large pothole on the road, sustaining injuries.
Defendants had a duty to maintain, inspect, manage, supervise, control and/or repair the road located at and around 8153 W. 4th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90048. Defendants negligently, carelessly, recklessly, wantonly and unlawfully maintained, inspect, manage, supervise, control and/or repair the road, which had a very large pothole. The Defendants were aware or should have been aware of this severely dangerous condition, which caused injuries to the Plaintiff that were foreseeable and could have been prevented. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff pursuant to, among other statutes, Government Code sections 815.2, 815.4, 820, 830 and 835.
B. The City’s request for judicial notice
The City asks the Court to take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s government claim, filed on May 26, 2022. (Exh. A.) The City also asks the Court to take judicial notice of what the City describes as the City’s denial of the claim. (Exh. B.)
The Court grants the City's request to take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s government claim (exh. A). (See Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (c), 453.)
The Court denies the City's request to take judicial notice of Exhibit B because Exhibit B does not correspond to the City’s description of the document in its request for judicial notice. Exhibit B appears to be a denial of an unrelated claim.
C. The City’s demurrer
Defendant asks the Court to sustain the demurrer without prejudice and dismiss the case, arguing that Plaintiff filed the complaint more than six months after the City denied Plaintiff’s claim, making the action untimely under Government Code section 945.6, subdivision (a)(1).
To support this argument, the City cites Exhibit B to its request for judicial notice, which, according to the City, shows that the City denied Plaintiff’s claim on June 14, 2022. However, as noted, the Court has denied the City’s request for judicial notice of Exhibit B because it appears to be the denial of an unrelated claim.
Plaintiff opposes the demurrer, arguing the complaint is timely because the City did not serve a denial of Plaintiff’s claim which triggered the six-month limitations period. Plaintiff contends that he timely served the complaint within two years from accrual of the cause of action under Government Code section 945.6, subdivision (a)(2).
The City has filed a reply declaration acknowledging that exhibit B is “the wrong Denial Letter for another case.” (Reply p. 1.) The City has attached a document it describes as “the correct Denial Letter dated May 14, 2025 [sic]” to the reply declaration. (Reply p. 1.)
The Court continues the hearing to give Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the City’s reply declaration and the attached exhibit.
CONCLUSION
The Court CONTINUES the hearing of Defendant City of Los Angeles’s demurrer to a date to be provided at the June 6, 2025 hearing. At least 10 court days before the continued hearing, Plaintiff Ferhat Kavut may file and serve a supplemental brief or declaration addressing the City’s March 26, 2025 reply and the attached exhibit. At least 5 court days before the continued hearing, Defendant City of Los Angeles may file a supplemental brief or declaration addressing Plaintiff’s supplemental brief or reply, if any.
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.