Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01818, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01818    Hearing Date: December 13, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 12/13/23

Case #23CHCV01818

DEMURRER TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Demurrer filed on 7/28/23.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Nick Montoya

NOTICE: ok

Demurrer is to the entire complaint:

            1.  General Negligence

            2.  Premises Liability

RULING: The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises from an incident that occurred on 7/25/22 where Plaintiff Nick Montoya (Plaintiff) crashed into a dried tree branch while riding his scooter on a bike path and suffered injuries as a result.  Plaintiff contends that the bike path is under the care and maintenance of the Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant).  Plaintiff further contends that Defendant failed to properly maintain and trim dried branches in order to prevent injuries to civilians.   

On 6/21/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for general negligence and premises liability.  After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues Defendant had with the complaint, on 7/28/23, Defendant filed and served the instant demurrer to the entire complaint.  Plaintiff has opposed the demurrer.

ANALYSIS

Under the Government Claims Act, an action for monetary damages cannot be maintained against a public entity unless a plaintiff has first presented a written claim to the public entity.  See Government Code 905, 945.4.  Claims involving injury to a person must be presented to the public entity within six months of the accrual of the cause of action.  Government Code 911.2(a).  The failure to present a timely and proper claim to the public entity is fatal to the cause of action.  See City of San Jose (1974) 12 C3d 447, 454; Harman (1982) 131 CA3d 607, 613-614; State of California (2004) 32 C4th 1234, 1239.

The failure to allege facts showing compliance or excuse for noncompliance with the claim  presentation requirement is grounds for demurrer based on failure to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action.  CCP 430.10(e); State v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 C4th 1234, 1239.

Here, Plaintiff’s Judicial Council Form Complaint concludes that Plaintiff has complied with applicable claims statutes but does not include any facts to support the allegation of compliance.  (See Complaint ¶9.a).  Defendant requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with Government Code 911.2.      

In opposition to the demurrer, Plaintiff does not dispute the foregoing requirements to stating a claim for monetary damages for personal injuries against a public entity.  Rather, Plaintiff requests that the  Court allow his action to proceed because his counsel filed a claim with the City of Los Angeles, received a denial letter on 12/22/22 and Plaintiff filed this action on 6/21/23, within six months of the denial. 

The denial letter from the City of Los Angeles, which Plaintiff attaches to the opposition, specifically provides that the principal reason for the denial of Plaintiff’s claim was “[t]he Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is a separate public entity and not part of the City of Los Angeles.”  (See Akari Decl., Ex.1).  The letter even indicates that the address for the MTA was enclosed.  Id. 

Plaintiff offers no evidence to show that he filed a timely and proper claim with the MTA, the public entity which he has sued in this action.  Plaintiff also provides no authority for the proposition that the denial of a claim by one public entity, the City of Los Angeles, satisfies the condition precedent for filing a court action against a separate public entity, MTA.

Plaintiff gives no indication as to how he can cure the defect in his complaint. 

CONCLUSION

The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.