Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01549, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV01549    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 4/9/24

Case #23CHCV01549

DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Demurrer & Motion to Strike filed on 2/13/24. 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant City of Santa Clarita (Doe 1)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Luis Barajas

NOTICE: ok

Demurrer is to the entire First Amended Complaint:

            1.  Premises Liability – Dangerous Condition of Public Property

            2.  Motor Vehicle

            3.  General Negligence

RELIEF REQUESTED IN MOTION TO STRIKE: An order striking portions of the First Amended Complaint regarding Plaintiff serving the City of Santa Clarita with a claim for damages. 

RULING: The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.  The motion to strike is placed off calendar as moot. 

SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of an incident that occurred on or about 4/25/22 while Plaintiff Luis Barajas (Plaintiff) was a passenger on a bus driven by Defendant Mario Aguirre.  Plaintiff alleges that he was forcibly thrown off the bus by another, unidentified, passenger which caused him to sustain injuries. 

On 5/30/23, Plaintiff filed this action for negligence against certain named defendants and Does 1-20.  On 9/20/23, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint naming the City of Santa Clarita (the City) in place of Doe 1.  On 11/29/23, the City filed and served a demurrer to the complaint.  On 1/5/24, the City filed and served a Notice of Non-Receipt of Opposition to Demurrer.  On 1/8/24, Plaintiff filed (served on 1/7/24) a First Amended Complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) Premises Liability – Dangerous Condition of Public Property; (2) Motor Vehicle and (3) General Negligence.  On 1/9/24, the City filed an objection to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

On 1/12/24, this Court sustained the City’s demurrer with leave to amend.  (See 1/12/24 Minute Order).  Since an amended pleading had already been filed, the Court granted the City 30 days from 1/12/24 to respond to the First Amended Complaint.  Id.  After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues the City had with the First Amended Complaint, on 2/13/24, the City filed and served the instant demurrer to the entire First Amended Complaint and motion to strike  portions of the First Amended Complaint regarding Plaintiff serving the City with a claim for damages.  (Theiring Decl.).  Plaintiff has opposed the demurrer and motion to strike and the City has filed replies to the oppositions. 

ANALYSIS

The City’s Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) as to items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 is granted.  The City’s Request for Judicial Notice as to item 3 is denied.  Item 3 does not fall under any of the subsections in Evidence Code 452.    

The City demurs to each cause of action in the First Amended Complaint on the ground that it is barred due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Government Claims Act.  In order to sue a public entity, such as the City, for money or damages based on a cause of action relating to personal injuries, a person must first present a claim to the entity within six months of the date the cause of action accrues.  See Renteria (2006) 135 CA4th 903, 908 citing Government Code 911.2 and 945.4; (FAC No.5.c.(4)).

Although Plaintiff has alleged that the City was served with a claim for damages pursuant to Government Code 911.2 which was rejected by an agent of the City, Plaintiff’s argument/admissions in the opposition establish that the foregoing allegations are untrue.  (See FAC p.6, p.8, p.10). 

In the opposition to the demurrer, Plaintiff argues that the exhibits attached to the declaration of attorney Michael Dufour establish that Plaintiff adequately complied with the Government Claims Act requirement which is sufficient to allow the action to proceed.  (See Opposition, p.6:1-15 citing State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 C4th 1234); Dufour Decl. ¶¶4-5). 

Government Code 910 provides:

“A claim shall be presented by the claimant or by a person acting on his or her behalf and shall show all of the following:

(a) The name and post office address of the claimant.

(b) The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent.

(c) The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.

(d) A general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim.

(e) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known.

(f) The amount claimed if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case.”

The first document relied on by Plaintiff is a Public Records Request which indicates that Plaintiff was pushed from a bus by a fellow passenger which caused Plaintiff to hit his head on the cement and requests a copy of video footage.  (See Dufour Decl. ¶4, Ex.2).  The second document relied on by Plaintiff is the denial of a claim made by Plaintiff to co-defendant MV Transportation Inc.’s insurance carrier.  (See Dufour Decl. ¶5 and Ex.2 and 3 attached thereto).  Neither of these document provided all of the information required to be included in a government claim.  See Government Code 910, 910.2.  More importantly, neither of these documents contain information which would have put the City on notice that Plaintiff was attempting to file a valid claim and that litigation would result if the matter was not resolved.  See Bodde, supra at 1245.  Plaintiff gives no indication that anything else was submitted to the City with regard to the claims made in this action.  As such, Plaintiff has failed to establish that he can cure this defect in his pleading.  Hedwall (2018) 22 CA5th 564, 580.          

Even if Plaintiff had submitted a proper government claim to the City, Plaintiff has failed to establish a proper basis for his motor vehicle and general negligence causes of action.  Liability against public entities, such as the City, is governed by statute.  Government Code 815(a); Searcy (1986) 177 CA3d 792, 798.  Here, Plaintiff has failed to set forth any statutory basis for the motor vehicle and general negligence causes of action.  Additionally, while the opposition requests leave to amend, Plaintiff fails to indicate how he could amend the pleading to cure the defect as is his burden.  Hedwall, supra. 

CONCLUSION

The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.  The motion to strike is placed off calendar as moot due to the ruling on the demurrer.