Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV05871, Date: 2024-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05871    Hearing Date: December 19, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff Ariadni Kidonis Silva Perez (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant Andrew P. Taylor (“Defendant”) alleging two causes of action for (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence, arising from allegations that Defendant’s motor vehicle struck Plaintiff on her motorcycle in a parking lot. 

            Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to timely present her claim to the City of Los Angeles (“City”), Defendant’s employer, before bringing suit. 

            Plaintiff opposes the motion and Defendant replies.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Defendant requests judicial notice of the following:

·       Exhibit A: Vehicle Code Section 20012

·       Exhibit B: Declaration of City Clerk Michael Valdivia re Plaintiff’s failure to file a claim for damages for an incident date of September 27, 2023.

            As for Exhibit A, judicial notice may be taken of the decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States and of official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (a) and (c).)  Therefore, the Court takes judicial notice of Exhibit A.

            Regarding Exhibit B, Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice of Declaration of City Clerk Michael Valdivia as an official act, pursuant to subdivision (c) and as “facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy” pursuant to subdivision (h). 

            The Court finds that the Clerk’s declaration is neither an “official act” nor a fact or proposition capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.  Therefore, the Court declines to take judicial notice of Exhibit B.

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 (hereafter Civic Partners).)  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.) 

2.     GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT - PRESENTATION REQUIREMENTS

Per the Government Claims Act (“GCA”), also known as the Tort Claims Act, (Gov. Code, 810 et seq.), a party with a claim for money or damages against a public entity must present a written claim directly with that public entity.  (Gov. Code, § 905.)  And under Government Code section 945.4, “no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Section 910 until a written claim therefore has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board.”  (Stockett v. Association of Cal. Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Authority (2004) 34 Cal.4th 441, 445  [cleaned up]; see also Munoz v. State of Cal. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1767.)   Additionally, an action against a public employee is barred if an action against the employing public entity would be barred by the failure to satisfy the GCA. (Gov. Code, § 950.2.)

The claim presentation requirement provides a public entity with an opportunity to evaluate the claim and decide whether to pay on the claim.  (Roberts v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 474.)  To comply with the GCA presentation requirements, a claimant is compelled to observe Government Code section 910 which 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.

(Gov. Code, § 910.) 

            In sum, “compliance with the claims provisions is mandatory. Fulfilling the requirements of the tort claims presentation procedure is a condition precedent to filing suit; it is not an affirmative defense.”  (Castaneda v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1061 [cleaned up].)   “[F]ailure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirements subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action.”  (State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239.)  “Moreover, a plaintiff need not allege strict compliance with the statutory claim presentation requirement.  Courts have long recognized that a claim that fails to substantially comply with sections 910 and 910.2, may still be considered a ‘claim as presented’ if it puts the public entity on notice both that the claimant is attempting to file a valid claim and that litigation will result if the matter is not resolved.”  (Id. at p. 1245 [cleaned up].)  

3.     PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to satisfy the GCA on the grounds that Defendant is an employee of the Los Angeles Police Department who was driving a marked black and white police car at the time of the alleged collision. 

            Indeed, the Complaint does not allege either compliance or exemption from the GCA.  (See Complaint ¶ 9 [left blank].)  But the Complaint also does not allege that Defendant was driving a black and white police vehicle or that Defendant was acting in the course of his job as a police officer at the time of the collision.  (See Complaint at ¶ GN-1.)  Instead, Plaintiff alleges in pertinent part that “Defendant ANDREW P. TAYLOR, an individual, . . . struck the back side of the Plaintiff’s motorcycle.”  (Complaint, p. 5, emphasis added.) 

Further, Defendant has not presented any judicially noticeable facts that (1) Defendant is a police officer, (2) Defendant’s vehicle involved in the collision was a marked black and white police vehicle, (3) that the accident occurred while Defendant was acting in the course and scope of his employment with the Los Angeles Police Department or any other City entity, or (4) that the City has no record of a prefiling claim being filed by or on behalf of Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Consequently, based upon the allegations of the Complaint, the Court cannot determine that the GCA even applies to the claims asserted by Plaintiff.  And without first making that threshold determination, the Court cannot then determine whether Plaintiff has complied with the GCA’s presentation requirements.  Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

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

DATED:  December 19, 2024                        ___________________________

                                                                  Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                  Judge of the Superior Court