Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV06336, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24SMCV06336 Hearing Date: June 12, 2025 Dept: 207
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
DEPARTMENT |
207 |
|
HEARING DATE |
June
12, 2025 |
|
CASE NUMBER |
24SMCV06336 |
|
MOTION |
Motion
for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication |
|
Defendant City of Santa Monica |
|
|
OPPOSING PARTY |
none |
MOVING PAPERS:
BACKGROUND
This case arises from allegations that Plaintiff was injured following
a slip and fall outside Urth Café.
On February 5, 2025, Plaintiff Kourosh Khajavi (“Plaintiff”) filed
suit against Defendants Urth Santa Monica Development dba Urth Café Santa
Monica (“Urth”) and City of Santa Monica (“City”) (together, “Defendants”)
alleging two causes of action: (1) negligence against Urth and (2) dangerous
condition of public property against City.
City now moves for summary judgment or in the alternative summary
adjudication on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Government
Claims Act by failing to timely file his Complaint within six months of the
City’s rejection of the claim, pursuant to Government Code section 945.6. Plaintiff has filed a notice of
non-opposition to City’s motion.
LEGAL STANDARDS – MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION
“[T]he party moving for summary
judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of
material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.] There
is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a
reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party
opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” ¿(Aguilar
v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (hereafter Aguilar).)
¿“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production
to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of
material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and
the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to
make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material
fact.” ¿(Ibid.; Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2005) 135
Cal.App.4th 1463, 1474 [summary judgment standards held by Aguilar apply
to summary adjudication motions].)
Further, “the trial court
may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a factfinder to determine whose
version is more likely true. Nor may the
trial court grant summary judgment based on the court's evaluation of credibility.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th. at p. 840
[cleaned up]; see also Weiss v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation
(2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [“Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or
summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the
light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of that party”].)
A party may move for
summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action, affirmative defenses,
claims for damages, or issues of duty if that party contends that there is no
merit to the cause of action, defense, or claim for damages, or if the party
contends that there is no duty owed. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be
granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative
defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Ibid.) A cause of action has no merit if: (1) one or
more elements of the cause of action cannot be separately established, even if
that element is separately pleaded, or (2) a defendant establishes an
affirmative defense to that cause of action.
(See Code Civ. Proc., §
437c, subd. (n); Union Bank v. Superior
Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 583.)
Once the defendant has shown that a cause of action has no merit, the
burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of material fact
exists as to that cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2); Union Bank v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p.
583.) Additionally, in line with Aguilar,
“[o]n a motion for summary adjudication, the trial court has no discretion to
exercise. If a triable issue of material fact exists as to the challenged
causes of action, the motion must be denied. If there is no triable issue of
fact, the motion must be granted.” (Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Corp.
v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 309, 320.)
DISCUSSION
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.
Government Code section 912.4
provides that the government is required to act on the claim within 45 days of
the claim being presented (unless this period is extended by agreement of the
parties), and if the government fails to act within that time, the claim is
deemed rejected.
Pursuant to Government Code
section 945.6, subdivision (a)(1), Plaintiff’s suit must be brought within six
months after the written notice is deposited in the mail.
In support of its motion, the
City has produced evidence that it mailed plaintiff a notice of rejection of
the claim that warned Plaintiff he had only six (6) months from the date the
notice was deposited in the mail to file a court action on the claim. (UMF Nos. 3-4.) However, Plaintiff did not file the instant
action until December 27, 2024.
Therefore, City has met its
initial burdens of production and persuasion to demonstrate that Plaintiff’s
claim against it is untimely pursuant to the Government Claims Act, and
Plaintiff is not opposed the motion, conceding that the claim against the City
is barred.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the City’s unopposed
motion for summary judgment. City shall
file a proposed Order and Judgment in conformity with the Court’s ruling on or
before June 26, 2025.
The City shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the
notice with a proof of service forthwith.
DATED: June 12, 2025 ___________________________
Michael
E. Whitaker
Judge
of the Superior Court