Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24CMCV00472, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CMCV00472    Hearing Date: May 30, 2024    Dept: A

24CMCV00472 Kimberly Watson v. City of Los Angeles, City of Compton, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, County of Los Angeles, and State of California

 

Thursday, May 30, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER OVERRULING DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT, CITY OF COMPTON

 

I.        BACKGROUND      

       The complaint alleges Plaintiff helped her child exit her vehicle from the passenger side when she stepped over a sewage cap that broke, causing her to fall into a hole. Plaintiff alleges one cause of action for dangerous condition of public property.

II.      ARGUMENTS

       Defendant, City of Compton (“Compton”) demurrers to the complaint on grounds of misjoinder of parties. Compton contends that it did not own, operate, lease, or control the public property where the accident allegedly occurred, which is within the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles.

       In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel argues that he requested Compton’s counsel to hold off from filing this demurrer with Plaintiff’s counsel received an answer from the City of Los Angeles. Defendant wasted the court’s time. Plaintiff’s counsel does not have a reason to doubt Compton’s contention.  The court, however, may not consider extrinsic evidence. Alternatively, Plaintiff asks for leave to amend.

       In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff acknowledged in writing that the complaint wrongfully names “non-relevant” parties and acknowledged they should be dismissed.      

III.    LEGAL STANDARDS

       The bases for demurrer are limited by statute and may be sustained for reasons including failure to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action and uncertainty as well as for misjoinder of parties.(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10 subd. (d).) A demurrer “tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law.” (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.)

       The court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638.)     

IV.    DISCUSSION

       Plaintiff alleges that the incident occurred at 816 East 118th Street in Los Angeles. (Complaint ¶ 13.) The complaint asserts that the location of the incident and specifically, the sewage cap, was owned, maintained, and/or controlled by Compton among other public entity defendants. (Complaint ¶ 13.)

       Compton requests judicial notice of the Los Angeles County Assessor’s website showing that the address where the incident occurred falls within the City of Los Angeles. (Defendant’s RJN, Ex. B.) Judicial notice may be taken of facts not reasonably subject to dispute and are “capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code, § 452 subd. (h).) 

       Compton does not cite any authority that permits judicial notice of the contents of government websites. While it is appropriate to take judicial notice of the existence of the website, the truth of matters stated in such documents is not subject to judicial notice. (Searles Valley Minerals Operations, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 514, 519.)

Therefore, in Searles, the trial court properly denied the request for judicial notice of contents in the website pages of the American Coal Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy.

       Defendant argues the website is subject to judicial notice as an official public record of the State of California. (Evid. Code, § 452 (c).) However, while judicial notice of official acts and public records is permitted by statute, the courts “do not take judicial notice of the truth of all matters stated therein." (Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063.)

 

V.      CONCLUSION

       As Compton has not demonstrated that the face of the complaint and matters properly subject to judicial notice establish that Compton is not a proper party to this action, Compton’s demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant is ordered to file an answer within 10 days.