Muriel Bridgeforth v. County of Los Angeles

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

 

MOVING PARTY:  Defendant County of Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Muriel Bridgeforth

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Muriel Bridgeforth, a 62-year-old African American woman, brings FEHA employment claims against her employer, County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges she has been denied promotion opportunities based on her race, disability, and age.

Defendant now brings this motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Plaintiff opposed.  

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. Generally speaking, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) Here, it appears any attempt to avoid the statute of limitations issue would be futile—Plaintiff does not contend otherwise.  Accordingly, no leave to amend is given. 

Defendant is to submit a Proposed Judgment consistent with this ruling.  

Defendant is to give notice to the Plaintiff, unless waived.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

1. Meet and Confer

The Declaration of Shawn Thomas reflects that the meet and confer requirement was met.

2. Request for Judicial Notice

Pursuant to Defendant’s request, the court takes judicial notice of exhibit C.

The court takes judicial notice of the exhibit without assuming the truth of the assertions contained therein. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h).)  (See Seelig v. Infinity Broad. Corp. (2002) 97 Cal. App. 4th 798, 808.)

3. Legal Standard

The rules applicable to demurrers also apply to motions for judgment on the pleadings.    (County of Orange v. Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 21, 32.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).) The grounds for the motion must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from matters that may be judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (d).) The trial court must accept as true all material facts properly pleaded, but does not consider conclusions of law or fact, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or facts that are judicially noticed.  (Stevenson Real Estate Services, Inc. v. CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1219-20.) “A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself.” (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.)

4. Analysis

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the entire Complaint, arguing the claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Government Code section 12965. “This code section establishes a strict ‘one-year statute of limitations, commencing from the date of the right-to-sue notice by the [DFEH],’ except for certain statutory exceptions,” none of which are applicable here. (Acuna v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 1402, 1413.)

Plaintiff filed a Complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) on October 24, 2019 alleging Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation. (See RJN.) On November 13, 2019, DFEH sent Plaintiff a Right to Sue notice, stating that it would not be pursuing Plaintiff’s claim. (Id.)

Defendant contends that under the one-year limitations period, Plaintiff’s time to file expired on or about May 10, 2021. This includes the Covid-19 Emergency Rule 9 tolling period.  Plaintiff, however, did not file her Complaint in this action until May 21, 2021.

In opposition, Plaintiff does not dispute that the one-year limitations period applies here. Instead, she only argues “there is some ambiguity here as to when exactly the Complaint was filed” because the signature block on the Complaint is dated April 15, 2021.  (Opp. 5: 13-14.)

The court is confident that the electronic filing stamp on the Complaint reflecting May 21, 2021, as the date of filing is accurate.  The court docket also shows a filing date of May 21, 2021, as does the date next to counsel’s signature on the Mandatory Civil Case Cover Sheet filed with the Complaint. (See Civil Case Cover Sheet, 05-21-22.) Little more needs to be said. All of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the one-year statute of limitations in section 12965.  

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

Moving parties to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   December 5, 2022 ______________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in pa