Judge: Michael D. Washington, Case: 37-2023-00021374-CU-PA-NC, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael D Washington

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00021374-CU-PA-NC NORTHCUTT VS. TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 12/20/2023

The Demurrer to First Amended Complaint brought by defendant Tri-City Healthcare District (dba Tri-City Medical Center) (Tri-City) is OVERRULED. The time to file a responsive pleading shall be as set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320.

The Request for Judicial Notice brought by Tri-City is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code § 451, et seq.

This is a lawsuit against a public entity for personal injury. Plaintiff Diana Northcutt (Plaintiff) alleges that she 'has satisfied the Government Claims Statute prior to filing this lawsuit.' (ROA 18, ¶ 8.) In conjunction with this allegation, Plaintiff also alleges that Tri-City 'is not and was not listed in the public entity roster for the State of California and is not and was not registered with the County of San Diego as required of a public entity at the time of Plaintiff's harms or current.' (ROA 18, ¶ 9.) The way this is alleged – 'at the time of Plaintiff's harms or current' – obfuscates the issue a bit. Legally, if a public entity fails to file identifying information with the Secretary of State and the County Clerk, a claimant is excused from filing a claim or suing within the time limits of the Government Claims Act. (Weil and Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group, 2023) ¶ 1:669, citing Government Code § 53051, also citing Wilson v. San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (1977) 19 Cal.3d 555, 560.) However, judicially-noticeable documents from the Secretary of State and the San Diego County Clerk demonstrate that Tri-City filed up-to-date roster information with those agencies as of March 14, 2022. As such, while it may be true that this information was not up-to-date at the time of Plaintiff's harms (which occurred on or about June 3, 2021), it appears to have been current as of the time Plaintiff attempted to submit her claims (July 5, 2022 and July 14, 2022 for two respective letters that were submitted). 'Typically, claims for money damages must be presented within six months of a personal injury claim's accrual, and within one year of the accrual of other claims.' (Weil and Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group, 2023) ¶ 1:646, citing Willis v. City of Carlsbad (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1104, 1118.) Based on the allegations and the judicially-noticeable information, it does not appear that Tri-City's roster with the County Clerk was necessarily up-to-date within the six months that immediately followed Plaintiff's injury. The briefing is silent as to what the law is if a public entity is not in compliance with the roster rules at the time of the injury, but then brings itself into compliance at some subsequent time. The absence of legal authority or argument on that issue renders it appropriate to overrule under the liberal standards of demurrer.

Moreover, Tri-City points out that the two letters Plaintiff sent and is using as a basis to allege that she formally presented 'claims' to Tri-City under the Government Claims Act and raises the argument that, Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3090987 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  NORTHCUTT VS. TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER [IMAGED]  37-2023-00021374-CU-PA-NC legally, 'delivery to someone other than a statutorily-designated recipient does not satisfy the claim presentation requirement.' (Weil and Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group, 2023) ¶ 1:696, citing DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 991-992.) On the other hand, '[a] claim that is misdirected will satisfy the claim presentation requirement if it is 'actually received' by a statutorily designated recipient.' (Weil and Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group, 2023) ¶ 1:697, citing Government Code § 915(e), also citing DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 992.) At this juncture, it is not possible to tell how the two letters at issue were routed. Thus, on demurrer, the Court must indulge Plaintiff's allegations as true and the facts of how those letters were handled or processed can be addressed at a later stage of litigation.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3090987