Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV06047, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06047    Hearing Date: October 24, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 24, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Moving Party: Defendant Paramount Unified School District

Responding Party: Plaintiff John GD Doe

T/R:      DEFENDANT’S MOTION IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff John GD Doe sued Defendant Paramount Unified School District, asserting causes of action for (1) sexual assault; (2) negligence; (3) negligent failure to educate, train or warn; and (4) violation of Unruh. Plaintiff alleges he was sexually abused by his eighth-grade teacher while a student at Paramount Unified School District.

ANALYSIS

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings when the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.”  (CCP § §§ 438(b)(1) and (c)(1)(B)(ii).)  The grounds for motion provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.  (CCP § 438(d).)  Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s complaint fails because Plaintiff did comply with the claim presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act.

 The California Legislature passed AB 218 in 2019; that statute amended the Government Claims Act to exempt from the claim presentation requirements “[c]laims made pursuant to Section 340.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault” regardless of the date the wrongful conduct occurred. Prior to AB 218, only claims that occurred after January 1, 2009 were exempt. Under AB 218, Plaintiff was not required to comply with the claim presentation requirements.

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff still was required to comply with the Government Claims Act because AB 218 violates the California Constitution by retroactively imposing liability on a past occurrence. Defendant cites cases published before 1930 and ignores recent authority rejecting Defendant’s arguments. (See Coats v. New Haven Unified School District (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 415, 425-31 [rejecting constitutional challenges to AB 218].) The motion cannot be granted on this basis.

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.