Judge Michelle C. Kim, Case Number: 21STCV09922, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

On March 12, 2021, Plaintiffs Tonya Harrison (“Harrison”) and King Gorum (“Gorum”), a minor by his guardian ad litem, Harrison filed this action against Defendants Sonya Thompson (“Thompson”) and County of Los Angeles (the “County”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 15, 2019. Plaintiffs allege Thompson negligently caused the accident while in the course and scope of her employment with the County. The complaint alleges causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence against Defendants. Further, the complaint on its face alleges that Plaintiffs were required to and did comply with applicable claims statutes. (Compl. ¶ 9.)

On February 2, 2023, the court overruled the County’s demurrer to the Complaint without prejudice.

The County now has filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings to the complaint arguing it fails to state a claim against the Defendants because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the claims presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act (the “Act”). The motion is unopposed.

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings when the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(b)(1) and (c)(1)(B)(ii).)

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself. [Citation.]” (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 877.) “A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999 (Citations Omitted).) The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322 (citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216).)

Code of Civil Procedure § 439(a) provides that: “Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings.”

County satisfied this requirement prior to the hearing on this matter. (Mot., Ainslie Decl. ¶ 4.)

The County requests judicial notice be taken of (1) the government database is devoid of any claims filed by Plaintiff Gorum against the County (Mot., Khosdikian Decl. ¶ 4), (2) the unsigned government claim presented on behalf of Harrison (Mot., Khosdikian Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A), (3) the notice of denial for the claim presented on behalf of Harrison (Mot., Gyawu Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. B), and (4) Plaintiffs’ complaint filed in this action.

The request as to items 1-3 are granted. (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 368, 376 [“If a plaintiff alleges compliance with the claims presentation requirement, but the public records do not reflect compliance, the governmental entity can request the court to take judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c) that the entity's records do not show compliance.”]) The declarations submitted in connection with items 1-3 sufficiently explain from where the documents came, how they were obtained, and that they are sufficient for judicial notice to be taken of them. (See Mot., Khosdikian Decl. ¶¶ 1-4; Gyawu Decl. ¶¶ 1-3.) Lastly, the request as to Plaintiffs’ complaint is granted. (Evid. Code § 452(d).)

Government Code § 945.5 provides, “No suit for damages may be maintained against a public entity unless the claim has been presented to it.”

California Government Code § 911.2(a) states, “[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.” Government Code § 945.6 provides in relevant part:

(a) Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6 and subject to subdivision (b), any suit brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division must be commenced:

(1) If written notice is given in accordance with Section 913, not later than six months after the date such notice is personally delivered or deposited in the mail.

“A public entity cannot be sued for tort unless (1) a timely written claim has previously been presented to the governmental entity, (2) any late claim has been presented to the public entity and been excused by it or the court, or (3) conditions described by Government Code section 946.4 … have been met.” (Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 480, 483.)

“The failure to timely present a proper claim … bars a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit against that entity. [Citation.]” (Gong, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at 374.) Thus, “[e]ven if the public entity has actual knowledge of facts that might support a claim, the claims statutes still must be satisfied. [Citation.]” (DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983, 990.) “The filing of a claim is a condition precedent to the maintenance of any cause of action against the public entity and is therefore an element that a plaintiff is required to prove in order to prevail.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 767.)

The County contends that no claim was ever presented by Gorum. Even though the complaint on its face thus alleges that Gorum complied with the claims presentation requirement, the court has taken judicial notice that the County’s record is devoid of any claim submitted by Gorum in relation to the underlying motor vehicle accident. Thus, because the public record does not reflect proper compliance with the claims presentation requirement, the complaint has not been sufficiently pleaded as to Gorum’s claims. (See Gong, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at 376.) It is noted that no opposition has been filed to show how this defect can be corrected. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)

Therefore, the County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as to Gorum’s causes of action against Defendants without leave to amend.

The County next asserts that Harrison’s claim was not presented within six months of the March 15, 2019 accident. The County contends the claim was untimely filed in February 2021, and the County argues that the defects with Harrison’s complaint cannot be cured.

The complaint alleges that Harrison complied with the applicable claims statute. (Compl. ¶ 9.) However, the judicially noticeable evidence shows that the unsigned claim for damages presented on Harrison’s behalf is dated February 3, 2021. The County informed Harrison that the claim, which the County received on February 11, 2021, was being denied as not timely filed through a notice dated March 2, 2021. (Mot., Gyawu Decl. ¶2-3 Exh. B.) Harrison does not oppose the demurrer or otherwise contend Harrison timely filed a claim against Defendants relating to the subject accident. Furthermore, the complaint does not plead excuse from compliance with the Act’s claims requirements. Accordingly, the judicially noticeable evidence shows that Harrison’s claim was not presented to the County within six months of the subject March 15, 2019 accident. Instead, Harrison’s claim was filed in February 2021, which bars Harrison’s claims against Defendants. (Gong, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at 374.)

The County’s demurrer to the complaint is sustained as to Harrison’s causes of action against Defendants.

As with Gorum, the burden is on Harrison to show in what manner she can amend the complaint, and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. (Goodman, supra, 18 Cal.3d at 349.) In this case, Harrison does not oppose the demurrer or otherwise make any showing as to how she can cure the above defects.

Therefore, the County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as to Harrison’s causes of action against Defendants without leave to amend.

The County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted in its entirety without leave to amend.

Hon. Michelle C. Kim

Judge of the Superior Court