Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV28003, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28003    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

MARIA CRUZ RIVERA, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO), ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 21STCV28003 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

February 1, 2024 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff, Maria Cruz Rivera (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant, City Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) (“Defendant”) for damages arising the doors of Defendant’s bus on May 4, 2020. Plaintiff sets forth a single cause of action for general negligence.   

At this time, Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to timely file a tort claim pursuant to Gov. Code §911.2.  

Any opposition was due on or before January 18, 2024. The motion is unopposed. 

 

II. Request for Judicial Notice 

Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s March 22, 2021 Claim for Damages and (2) Defendant’s letter rejecting Plaintiff’s Claim, dated March 30, 2021. The requests are GRANTED. (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 369-70 n. 1.)    

 

III. Motion for Summary Judgment  

  1. Burdens on Summary Judgment 

A party may move for summary judgment “if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (a).) “[I]f all the evidence submitted, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” the moving party will be entitled to summary judgment.  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (f)(2).)     

The moving party bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact, and if the party does so, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; accord Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)  

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(c).) 

 

  1. Analysis 

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.” 

A tort claim for money damages against a public entity must be filed with the public entity within six months of the accrual of the cause of action.  (Gov. Code, § 911.2.)  “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.”  (Gov. Code, § 911.2.)  “The timeliness of such actions is governed by the specific statute of limitations set forth in the Government Code, not the statute of limitations applicable to private defendants.”  (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1267.)  

“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 v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 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.)    

Here, Plaintiff allegedly suffered injuries on May 4, 2020, when the middle doors of the bus hit her three times. (UMF 3.) Plaintiff mailed her Tort Claim to Defendant on March 19, 2021 by certified mail. (UMF 2.) Pursuant to Gov. Code § 915.2, “The claim, amendment, application, or notice shall be deemed to have been presented and received at the time of the deposit.” Service by mail is complete at the time the notice is deposited in a post office, mail box, or other like facility maintained by the United States Postal Service. (CCP § 1013.) Thus, Plaintiff presented her claim on March 19, 2021. Plaintiff’s Tort Claim was rejected on the grounds that the claim was presented more than six months after the incident, and a letter was mailed to Plaintiff on March 30, 2021. (UMF 8.) The six-month statutory period from the date of injury on May 4, 2020 had expired on November 4, 2020. (UMF 5). Further, any applicability of the 120-day COVID-19 extension of the statutory period, pursuant to California Governor’s Executive Order N-35-20, expired on March 4, 2021. (UMF 6.) Plaintiff filed her Complaint on July 30, 2021, in the Los Angeles Superior Court. (UMF 9.) 

The Court finds Defendant has met its prima facie burden that Plaintiff failed to present a timely claim under prior to filing suit. The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact as to this issue. However, because Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, Plaintiff necessarily fails to meet her shifted burden. Therefore, no triable issue of material fact exists as to Plaintiff’s untimely presentation of her government tort claim barring Plaintiff from filing suit against Defendant.  

 

IV. Conclusion  

Based on the foregoing, the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) against Plaintiff’s complaint is GRANTED.  

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 31st day of January 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court