Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV08991, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08991    Hearing Date: February 15, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On April 21, 2023, Plaintiff Phylisha Bullock (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”), John Doe, and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On January 19, 2024, Defendant filed a demurrer to be heard on February 15, 2024. On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On February 6, 2024, Defendant filed a reply. 

Trial is scheduled for October 18, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Defendant asks the Court to sustain the demurrer. 

Plaintiff asks the Court to overrule the demurrer. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

“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. 

“(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue. 

“(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action. 

“(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties. 

“(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 

“(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, ‘uncertain’ includes ambiguous and unintelligible. 

“(g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct. 

“(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.) 

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.)  

DISCUSSION 

A.      Complaint 

The complaint alleges that on or about April 26, 2022, at or near Western Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles, while Plaintiff was boarding or exiting Defendants’ bus, Defendant John Doe suddenly, abruptly and without warning closed the bus doors on Plaintiff, injuring her. 

The complaint also alleged that “Defendants, LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; and DOES 1 through 50, were served with a claim for damages pursuant to Government Code Section 911.2 on or about May 18, 2022 and has not been rejected by an agent for Defendants LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.” 

B.       Demurrer 

          Defendant asks the Court to sustain the demurrer because the complaint was not filed within the limitations period provided by Government Code section 945.6, subdivision (a)(l).  The statute provides in part: 

“(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.” 

(Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a).) 

          Defendant rejected Plaintiff’s claim for damages on July 7, 2022.  As a result, Defendant argues, Plaintiff had until January 7, 2023, to file her action, making her complaint filed on April 21, 2023 untimely.  

          Plaintiff argues (1) the Court should not consider Defendant’s timeliness argument because it relies on information outside the complaint, which Defendant did not ask the Court to judicially notice, (2) Plaintiff did not receive a letter from Defendant denying Plaintiff’s claim for damages, and (3) the rejection letter was returned to Defendant as undeliverable. 

          As noted, defects raised in a demurrer must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by judicial notice. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).)  The timeliness defect which Defendant asserts is not apparent on the face of the complaint and information establishing the purported defect is not before the Court on a request for judicial notice. 

Even if the Court granted judicial notice of the letter denying Plaintiff’s claim for damages, Plaintiff asserts that she never received the letter and it was returned to Defendant as undeliverable.  If, as Plaintiff suggests, Defendant did not give written notice in accordance with Government Code section 913, the complaint would be timely.  (See Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)(2) [absent written notice under Gov. Code, § 913, suit against public entity must be commenced within two years of accrual of cause of action].) 

          The Court cannot resolve the factual dispute concerning the rejection letter in this demurrer proceeding.  On this record, the Court cannot find the complaint was untimely as a matter of law. 

          The Court overrules the demurrer. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court OVERRULES the demurrer of Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.  Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is ordered to file an answer or otherwise plead to the complaint within 10 days.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(j)(1).) 

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 of the date of the hearing.