Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV02763, Date: 2024-12-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02763    Hearing Date: December 17, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            This case arises from injuries Plaintiff Ashley Rochestie (“Plaintiff”) allegedly sustained when she fell into a hole in the sidewalk created by a half-filled planter.

            Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants City of Santa Monica; Los Angeles County; SML Investors, LLC; 624 Lincoln Blvd. Apartments; and Yi Pan, alleging five causes of action for (1) Damages Based on Governmental Tort Liability and Negligence (Gov. Code, § 835); (2) Negligence; (3) Premises Liability; (4) Private Nuisance; and (5) Public Nuisance.  As to Defendants City of Santa Monica (“City”) and County of Los Angeles (“County” or “Defendant”), Plaintiff alleges only the first cause of action.

            On January 31, 2024, the Court sustained City’s demurrer for failure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code § 905.)  The Court did not grant leave to amend, as Plaintiff failed to identify any facts that could be added to the complaint to correct the identified deficiency.  (See Minute Order, Jan. 31, 2024 at pp. 4-6.) 

            The Court entered judgment in favor of City on May 6, 2024, and City served a Notice of Entry of Judgment on May 16, 2024.

            On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court’s January 31 order sustaining Plaintiff’s demurrer, which the Court denied on August 28, because the Court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its order after judgment was entered.  Plaintiff also moved for relief from the claims statute, which the Court denied on jurisdictional grounds as untimely.  (See Minute Order, Aug. 28, 2024.)

            County now moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to satisfy the claim presentation requirement.  Plaintiff has filed a declaration in opposition.

ANALYSIS

1.     MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer, but may be made after the time to demur has expired. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (f).)  “Like a demurrer, the grounds for the motion [for judgment on the pleadings] must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Civic Partners Stockton, LLC v. Youssefi (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1013.)  In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “[a]ll allegations in the complaint and matters upon which judicial notice may be taken are assumed to be true.” (Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313.) 

Government Code section 835 provides:

Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either:

(a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or

(b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.

            County argues that Plaintiff’s claim fails because Plaintiff did not timely submit the claim to the County, as required by Government Code section 911.2, nor does the Complaint allege that Plaintiff submitted a prefiling claim to the County.  Government Code section 911.2 requires:

(a) A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. A claim relating to any other cause of action shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action.

(b) For purposes of determining whether a claim was commenced within the period provided by law, the date the claim was presented to the Department of General Services is one of the following:

(1) The date the claim is submitted with a twenty-five dollar ($25) filing fee.

(2) If a fee waiver is granted, the date the claim was submitted with the affidavit requesting the fee waiver.

(3) If a fee waiver is denied, the date the claim was submitted with the affidavit requesting the fee waiver, provided the filing fee is paid to the department within 10 calendar days of the mailing of the notice of the denial of the fee waiver.

            A plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating or excusing compliance to withstand a demurrer.  (State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1243.)

            Here, the Complaint alleges, “Plaintiff filed a Claim for Damages To Person or Property form with the City of Santa Monica in accordance with Government Code §911.2.”  (Complaint ¶ 12.)  Thus, although the Complaint states that Plaintiff submitted a prefiling claim to the City of Santa Monica, Plaintiff does not allege she submitted a claim to the County of Los Angeles.

            In Opposition, Plaintiff has filed an attorney declaration, which indicates, “It is my understanding that the City of Santa Monica falls under the umbrella of the County of Los Angeles. Should the County of Los Angeles seek indemnification, they should request such instead of filing this present Motion.”  (Janfaza Decl. ¶ 4.) 

            Even if Plaintiff’s presentation of a claim to City somehow satisfied her obligation to submit a prefiling claim to County (which Plaintiff has not demonstrated it does), the Court already found, in connection with City’s demurrer, that Plaintiff did not timely submit a claim to City.  (See Minute Order, Jan. 31, 2024.)  In fact, the Court sustained City’s demurrer on this basis without leave to amend (ibid.), denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Minute Order, Aug. 28, 2024), denied Plaintiff’s motion for relief from the claims statute (Minute Order, March 11, 2024), and granted judgment in City’s favor on those findings.

            Therefore, Plaintiff has not alleged or demonstrated satisfaction of or exemption from the prefiling claim requirement as to County.

2.     LEAVE TO AMEND

A plaintiff has the burden of showing in what manner the complaint could be amended and how the amendment would change the legal effect of the complaint, i.e., state a cause of action. (See The Inland Oversight Committee v City of San Bernardino (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 771, 779; PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v Hulven Int'l, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 156, 189.) A plaintiff must not only state the legal basis for the amendment, but also the factual allegations sufficient to state a cause of action or claim. (See PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v Hulven Int'l, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 189.) Moreover, a plaintiff does not meet his or her burden by merely stating in the opposition to a demurrer or motion to strike that “if the Court finds the operative complaint deficient, plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend.” (See Major Clients Agency v Diemer (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1133; Graham v Bank of America (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 618 [asserting an abstract right to amend does not satisfy the burden].)

Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden, as the attorney declaration filed in opposition does not address whether leave to amend should be granted, should the Court grant the County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court grants the County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend. 

            The County shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.    

DATED:  December 17, 2024                        ___________________________

                                                                  Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                  Judge of the Superior Court