Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV09883, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09883    Hearing Date: January 30, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Juan Ramirez

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            The court denies defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s request for judicial notice, filed on January 23, 2025, because (1) new evidence is generally not permitted with reply papers, and (2) the matters to be judicially noticed are not relevant to the court’s disposition of this motion.  (Jack v. Ring LLC (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1186, 1210 [“‘[t]he general rule of motion practice . . . is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers’”]; Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825 [“Any matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue”].)

DISCUSSION

Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order granting its motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Complaint filed in this action by plaintiff Juan Ramirez (“Plaintiff”).  Defendant moves for this relief on the ground that Assembly Bill 218 (“AB 218”), which amended Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1—pursuant to which Plaintiff filed this action—is unconstitutional as applied to public entities.  (Compl., ¶ 9 [alleging that Plaintiff’s action is timely under section 340.1]; Mot., pp. 1:13-13 [arguing that AB 218 “violates Article XVI section 6 of the California Constitution, which prohibits gifts of public funds”], 8:27-9:6 [arguing that AB 218 violates the Constitution by imposing liability against a public entity for a past act for which no enforceable claim existed].)

The court denies Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because Defendant has not shown that the Complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or that the court lacks jurisdiction over this action since the Court of Appeal recently concluded, in West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1243, which is binding on this court, that AB 218 does not violate the gift clause of the California Constitution (i.e., Article XVI, section 6).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i), (c)(1)(B)(ii); West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1243, 1257 [“waiver of the claim presentation requirement did not constitute an expenditure of public funds that may be considered a ‘gift’ because AB 218 did not create new ‘substantive liability’ [citation] for the underlying alleged wrongful conduct[,]” and instead “simply waived a condition the state had imposed on its consent to suit”] [internal citations omitted].)

The court denies Defendant’s request that the court continue the hearing on this motion for six months pending the “likely” review of the constitutionality of AB 218 by the California Supreme Court.  (Reply, p. 2:21-24.)

ORDER

            The court denies defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

            The court orders plaintiff Juan M. Ramirez to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 30, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court