Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV03083, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV03083 Hearing Date: October 24, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff Yola Moreno (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) and Does 1-30 for general negligence, premises liability, Government Code section 815.2, subdivision (a), and Government Code 820, subdivision (a).
On September 1, 2023, Defendant filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-10 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief.
On June 28, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was set for hearing on September 10, 2024. On August 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On August 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to October 24, 2024.
Trial is currently scheduled for February 21, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court to grant judgment on the pleadings.
Plaintiff asks the Court to 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.
* * *
“(c) (1) The motion provided for in this section may only be made on one of the following grounds:
* * *
“(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.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subds. (b), (c), (d).)
‘‘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.)
Government Code section 910 provides:
“A claim shall be presented by the claimant or by a person acting on his or her behalf and shall show all of the following:
“(a) The name and post office address of the claimant.
“(b) The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent.
“(c) The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.
“(d) A general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim.
“(e) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known.
“(f) The amount claimed if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case.”
(Gov. Code, § 910.)
Government Code section 910.4 provides:
“The [governing body of the local public entity] shall provide forms specifying the information to be contained in claims against the state or a judicial branch entity. The person presenting a claim shall use the form in order that his or her claim is deemed in conformity with Sections 910 and 910.2. A claim may be returned to the person if it was not presented using the form. Any claim returned to a person may be resubmitted using the appropriate form.”
(Gov. Code, § 910.4; see Gov. Code, § 900.2, subd. (a).)
Government Code section 910.6, subdivision (b), provides:
“A failure or refusal to amend a claim, whether or not notice of insufficiency is given under Section 910.8, shall not constitute a defense to any action brought upon the cause of action for which the claim was presented if the court finds that the claim as presented complied substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2 or a form provided under Section 910.4.”
(Gov. Code, § 910.6, subd. (b).)
Government Code section 910.8 provides:
“If, in the opinion of [the governing body of the local public entity] or the person designated by it, a claim as presented fails to comply substantially with the requirements of Sections 910 and 910.2, or with the requirements of a form provided under Section 910.4 if a claim is presented pursuant thereto, the [governing body of the local public entity] or the person may, at any time within 20 days after the claim is presented, give written notice of its insufficiency, stating with particularity the defects or omissions therein. The notice shall be given in the manner prescribed by Section 915.4. The [governing body of the local public entity] may not take action on the claim for a period of 15 days after the notice is given.”
(Gov. Code, § 910.8; see Gov. Code, § 900.2, subd. (a).)
Government Code section 911 provides:
“Any defense as to the sufficiency of the claim based upon a defect or omission in the claim as presented is waived by failure to give notice of insufficiency with respect to the defect or omission as provided in Section 910.8, except that no notice need be given and no waiver shall result when the claim as presented fails to state either an address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent or an address of the claimant.”
(Gov. Code, § 911.)
“ ‘The purpose of these statutes is “to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.” [Citation.] Consequently, a claim need not contain the detail and specificity required of a pleading, but need only ‘fairly describe what [the] entity is alleged to have done.’ [Citations.] As the purpose of the claim is to give the government entity notice sufficient for it to investigate and evaluate the claim, not to eliminate meritorious actions [citation], the claims statute “should not be applied to snare the unwary where its purpose has been satisfied’ [citation].’ ” (Connelly v. County of Fresno (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 29, 37-38 (Connolly), quoting Stockett v. Association of Cal. Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Authority (2004) 34 Cal.4th 441, 446.)
“Where a claimant has attempted to comply with the claim requirements but the claim is deficient in some way, the doctrine of substantial compliance may validate the claim ‘if it substantially complies with all of the statutory requirements ... even though it is technically deficient in one or more particulars.’ ” (Connolly, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 38, quoting Santee v. Santa Clara County Office of Education (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 702, 713.) “ ‘The doctrine is based on the premise that substantial compliance fulfills the purpose of the claims statutes, namely, to give the public entity timely notice of the nature of the claim so that it may investigate and settle those having merit without litigation. [Citations.]’ ” (Ibid.) “The doctrine of substantial compliance, however, ‘cannot cure total omission of an essential element from the claim or remedy a plaintiff's failure to comply meaningfully with the statute.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1083.) “The test for substantial compliance is whether the face of the filed claim discloses sufficient information to enable the public entity to make an adequate investigation of the claim's merits and settle it without the expense of litigation.” (Ibid.)
If the governmental entity gives the claimant 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.’ ” (Sofranek, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246, 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.)
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTIC
The Court denies Defendant’s request to take judicial notice of a Google map (Exhibit D).
DISCUSSION
On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff presented a claim for damages to Defendant. In response to a question on the claim form asking how the damage or injury occurred, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote, “Client was using sidewalk on 47th St. when she tripped and fell due to poor maintenance, management, and control over subject sidewalk.” In response to the claim form’s subsequent question asking where the damage or injury occurred, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote, “47th. LOS ANGELES, CA, 90037.”
On January 30, 2023, Defendant sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter stating:
“The laws of the State of California (Government Code Sections 910 and 910.2) establish certain requirements for claims against public entities such as the City of Los Angeles. The subject claim does not comply with these legal requirements in that the claim does not state:
“Please provide the address and/or exact location of loss.
“The above information is also needed to give the claim a full and fair evaluation. Please supply this information in writing by mail or fax at (213) 978-7114 within the next fifteen (15) days.” (Original emphasis.)
On March 3, 2023, Defendant sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter stating in part:
“After reviewing the circumstances of your claim and the applicable law, it has been determined that your claim should be denied. The principal reason for denial of your claim is as follows:
“You have been advised by letter that the information in your claim is insufficient and does not comply with California Government Code Sections 910 and 910.2 and you have not corrected the deficiency. Your Claim is hereby denied on that basis.” (Original emphasis.)
Based on this evidence, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim was insufficient and as a result Plaintiff did not comply with the claim presentation requirement, which is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit against Defendant.
In response, Plaintiff argues that Defendant waived any insufficiency in the claim. With exceptions that do not apply here, “[a]ny defense as to the sufficiency of the claim based upon a defect or omission in the claim as presented is waived by failure to give notice of insufficiency with respect to the defect or omission as provided in [Government Code] Section 910.8 . . . .” (Gov. Code, § 911, emphasis added.) Government Code section 910.8 requires the government entity to give notice of the defect "within 20 days after the claim is presented . . . .” (Gov. Code, § 910.8.) Here, Plaintiff submitted her claim on January 3, 2023 but Defendant did not send the notice of insufficiency until January 30, 2023, 27 days after submission of the claim.
In its reply, Defendant does not address the wording of Government Code sections 910.8 and 911. Instead, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to cite an appellate decision in which the government entity sent a notice of insufficiency more than 20 days after submission of a claim. Yet Defendant also has cited no appellate authority addressing this situation, much less authority supporting its suggestion that the 20-day deadline of Government Code section 910.8 is optional. In the absence of governing case authority, the Court interprets the language of Government Code section 911 to mean that, with exceptions not applicable here, “[a]ny defense as to the sufficiency of the claim based upon a defect or omission in the claim as presented is waived by failure to give notice of insufficiency with respect to the defect or omission as provided in [Government Code] Section 910.8,” including the 20-day deadline specified in Government Code section 910.8. (See Gov. Code, §§ 910.8, 911.)
Because Defendant waived its objection to any defect in Plaintiff’s claim under Government Code section 911, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.