Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV13849, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV13849, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13849 Hearing Date: April 23, 2024 Dept: 30

HADI ALHINDI vs LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

TENTATIVE

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The complaint against LACMTA is DISMISSED. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests the court take judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s claim for damages dated November 20, 2019, and (2) Notice of Rejection of Plaintiff’s claim, rejected on February 21, 2020.

The requests are unopposed and granted. (Evid. Code § 452(c)-(d).) The court notes it is not taking judicial notice of any testimony, but rather is taking judicial notice of the filing and contents of the government claim. (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 369-70 n. 1; see also Fowler v. Howell (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1746, 1752-53.)

Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law ….” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525).) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters; therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

Meet and Confer

The demurrer and motion to strike are accompanied by the declaration of Eitan Yehoshua which satisfies the meet and confer requirements. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41.)

Discussion

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that Plaintiff failed to comply with the statute of limitations imposed by the Government Claims Act, specifically Government Code section 945.6(a)(1).

Government Code § 945.5 provides, “No suit for damages may be maintained against a public entity unless the claim has been presented to it.”

Government Code § 911.2(a) states, “[a] claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” Government Code § 945.6 provides in relevant 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.

…

“Government Code § 945.6 is a statute of limitation.” (Cole v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1, 3; see also Dowell v. Contra Costa County (2013) 928 F.Supp.2d 1137, 1152 [“Under § 945.6, if the board delivers written notice of its decision to the complainant, the complainant has six months to file a civil suit … This functions as a statute of limitations.”].) “It is well established by case law that the six-month limitation period in Government Code section 945.6 starts to run when the notice of rejection has been either personally served or deposited in the mail.” (Cole, 177 Cal.App.3d at 4.)

Here, Defendant avers that Plaintiff presented Plaintiff’s claim for damages on November 20, 2019, which was rejected on February 21 2020. Thus, Plaintiff was required to file a complaint six months from February 21, 2020, which was August 21, 2020. Defendant contends that because Plaintiff did not file the complaint until April 26, 2022, the complaint is untimely and barred by the six-month statute of limitations of Government Code § 945.6.

The judicially noticeable evidence establishes that Plaintiff presented a claim for injuries concerning the underlying incident to Defendant on November 20, 2019, and that Defendant mailed a notice of rejection on February 21, 2020. (Request for Judicial Notice Exhs. A-B.) Consequently, Plaintiff was required to file this action not later than six months after the notice of rejection was deposited in the mail. (Gov. Code § 945.6(a)(1); see also Cole v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1, 4 [“It is well established by case law that the six-month limitation period in Government Code section 945.6 starts to run when the notice of rejection has been either personally served or deposited in the mail and the time is not extended five additional days by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013.”].)

The six-month limitation period of Government Code § 945.6 means six calendar months, or 182 days, whichever is longer. (Gonzales v. County of Los Angeles (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 601, 603.) In this case, 182 days or six months after February 21, 2020, was August 21, 2020. The case was not filed until April 26, 2022.

Leave to Amend

The burden is on Plaintiff to show in what manner he or she can amend the complaint, and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349; Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723, 742.)

In this case, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition requesting leave to amend the complaint, and thus has failed to show that there is a reasonable possibility of amending the complaint successfully. Therefore, the complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

Defendant’s demurrer to the complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The complaint against Defendant is DISMISSED.