Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 19STCV40585, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV40585    Hearing Date: March 13, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Duran v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                19STCV40585

MOTION:                  Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint

HEARING DATE:   3/13/2024

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. 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. (CCP §§ 430.30, 430.70.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A “demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732, internal citations omitted.)

            “Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given.” (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.) It is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where there is any reasonable possibility that plaintiff can state a good cause of action. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) The burden is on plaintiff to show in what manner plaintiff can amend the complaint, and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. (Id.)

Analysis

Defendant County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) demurs to Plaintiff Irineo Domingo Duran III’s complaint. Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to allege compliance with government claims presentation requirements pursuant to Government Code section 911.2.

Under the Government Claims Act, the general rule is that any party with a claim for money or damages against a public entity must first file claim directly with that entity; only if that claim is denied or rejected may the claimant file a lawsuit. (Gov. Code §§ 905, 945.4; City of Ontario v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 894.) This provides the public entity with an opportunity to evaluate the claim and decide as to whether it will pay on the claim. (Roberts v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 474.)

Claims for personal injury or damage to personal property must be presented “not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.”  (Gov. Code § 911.2; see Alexander v. Exxon Mobil (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1263-1264.)  If a plaintiff fails to make a claim within the six months, a plaintiff may make written application to the public entity for permission to file a late claim; the application must state the reason for the delay and must be accompanied by a copy of the proposed claim. (Gov. Code § 911.4(a), (b).) If application for leave to file a late claim is denied, plaintiff's last recourse is to petition the court for relief from the claim filing requirements. (Gov. Code § 946.6.) Such relief must be sought within six months after the government entity's denial of the late claim application. (Id.) This six-month time limit operates as a mandatory statute of limitations. (See J.M. v. Huntington Beach Union High School Dist. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 648, 653-656 [claimant may not file suit per Gov. Code § 945.6(a) in lieu of petitioning court under Gov. Code § 946.6].)

Failure to allege facts in the complaint demonstrating compliance with the pre-litigation governmental claims presentation requirements subjects the complaint to a general demurrer. (State of Calif. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239; see also V.C. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 499, 509 [affirming trial court decision to sustain demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that V.C.'s failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Tort Claims Act].) A plaintiff must comply with the claim presentation requirements even if the entity has actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim.  (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 455.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that on February 20, 2019, Plaintiff sustained injuries while riding defendant Uber Technologies’ allegedly defective “Jump Scooter,” which malfunctioned causing Plaintiff to lose control and collide headfirst into a steel post stoplight affixed to the sidewalk at the Westwood/Rancho Park Metro stop at Westwood Blvd. and Exposition Blvd. in Los Angeles. (Compl., ¶¶ 9-14.) Defendant MTA allegedly maintained the subject public property in a dangerous manner, and negligently supervised “Juicers” who negligently docked e-scooters on the sidewalk. (¶¶ 75-92.)

Based on these allegations, the claim presentations period began on February 20, 2019. Plaintiff had until August 20, 2019, to file a claim directly with Defendant MTA based on the February 20, 2019, incident. The operative SAC does not allege any facts showing Plaintiff filed a claim with Defendant. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the six-month claim statute against a public entity, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant MTA are barred.

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.