Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 20STCV32385, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. DEFENDANT IS TO FILE A JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Plaintiff Williams Briand (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed this purported class action for civil rights violations against Defendant Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”), on August 25, 2020. The action was originally filed in the unlimited civil court and reclassified as a limited civil case on November 8, 2021. (Minute Order, 11/08/21.) An order to show cause regarding failure to file proof of service was scheduled and then continued multiple times in the limited court until August 30, 2022, with a warning to Plaintiff that failure to appear might result in dismissal of the action. When Plaintiff failed to appear on August 30, 2022, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. (Minute Order, 08/30/22.)

On March 27, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal. (Minute Order, 03/27/23.) Defendant filed its answer to the Complaint on September 26, 2023. On November 13, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to reclassify the action to a court of unlimited jurisdiction.

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on February 6, 2024. On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a conditional request for dismissal but the request was denied by the clerk’s office. (Request for Dismissal, 03/01/24.) No opposition to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings has been filed to date.

As an initial matter, the instant Motion is not accompanied by a proof of service demonstrating service of the Motion and notice of hearing on Plaintiff. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.)

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the Complaint on the basis of uncertainty and failure to allege compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act. The Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438, pursuant to which the parties are required to meet and confer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 438, 439.) The Motion is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, as required. (Motion, Panicker Decl., ¶¶3-6 and Exh. A.)

Uncertainty is not a basis for judgment on the pleadings under Code of Civil Procedure section 438. The Motion instead cites Code of Civil Procedure section 430.30, which is the demurrer statute to argue that the rules of demurrers apply to motions for judgment on the pleadings. However, the specific statutory grounds for judgment on the pleadings are distinct from the grounds for demurrer. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 438.) The overlap between demurrers and motions for judgment on the pleadings is that under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O’Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) Matters that are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.) The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.)

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on the grounds of uncertainty, therefore, is denied. However, Plaintiff’s failure to allege that he complied with the Government Tort Claims Act prior to filing this action amounts to a failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).) Defendant is a public entity created by state law. (Pub. Ut. Code, §§ 130050, 130051, 130051.5.) An essential element of a claim against a public entity is an allegation that a claim has been presented to it and has been acted on or rejected. (Gov. Code, § 910, et seq.) The Complaint does not contain an allegation that Plaintiff presented a claim to Defendant, which Defendant acted upon or rejected. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to judgment on the pleadings for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Also, leave to amend is denied as Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the instant Motion.