Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV22254, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22254    Hearing Date: December 10, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (sued as Doe 1)

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff John Doe, A.G.

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 requests for judicial notice as to Exhibits 1-3 because Superior Court decisions are neither binding on this court nor can be considered as persuasive authority and are therefore irrelevant.  (Harrott v. County of Kings (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1138, 1148 [“Trial court decisions are not precedents binding on other courts under the principle of stare decisis”]; Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1658, 1668 [“‘[a] written trial court ruling has no precedential value’”].)

The court grants plaintiff John Doe, A.G.’s request for judicial notice.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

The court grants defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s requests for judicial notice as to Exhibits 4-5 and 9.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

The court denies defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s requests for judicial notice as to Exhibits 6-7 because those documents are not relevant to the court’s ruling on this motion.  (Malek Media Group LLC v. AXWG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825 [“Any matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue”].)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff John Doe, A.G. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for personal injuries and damages from childhood sexual abuse pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 on July 11, 2022, against Doe defendants 1 through 60.

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” identifying the true name of fictitious Doe defendant 1 to be Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”).

Defendant now moves the court for an order granting its motion for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff’s Complaint on the ground that “the Legislature’s Assembly Bill 218 (‘AB 218’), which further amended Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 in 2019, is unconstitutional because it retroactively strips governmental immunity from public entities in violation of Article XVI, section 6 of the California Constitution, which prohibits gifts of public funds.”  (Notice of Mot., p. 2:8-12.)

The court denies Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because the Court of Appeal recently issued its decision 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, concluding that the “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.”  (West Contra Costa Unified School District, supra, 103 Cla.App.5th at p. 1257 [internal citation omitted]; Id. at pp. 1264 [again concluding that no gift occurred when the Legislature waived the claim presentation requirement], 1252 [rejecting the District-defendant’s contentions that reviving a claim that was formerly barred for failure to satisfy the claim presentation requirement would constitute an unconstitutional gift of public funds]; People v. Martin (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 825, 832 [“‘Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the . . . superior courts of this state . . . .’”].)

The court notes, as Defendant argues in its reply, that Roe #2, a Public Elementary School District v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, Case No. B334707, which concerns the constitutionality of AB 218, is currently pending before the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District.  (Def. RJN Ex. 4, p. 13 [asserting the claimed error is based on the trial court’s denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings, which argued that AB 218’s retroactive removal of the claim presentation requirement was an unconstitutional gift of public funds].)  However, the Court of Appeal has not issued a decision in that case.  The court further notes that the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review of West Contra Costa Unified School District on October 30, 2024.

ORDER

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

            The court orders plaintiff John Doe, A.G. to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  December 10, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court