Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03927, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03927    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: G

Defendant The People of the State of California’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Respondent: Plaintiff Nicholas Paul Reading

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant The People of the State of California’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is given twenty (20) days leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action. In September 2022, Plaintiff Nicholas Paul Reading was driving a motorcycle westbound on Interstate 10 (I-10) in the HOV lane to the west of White Avenue in Pomona when Reading allegedly struck a sudden bump in the roadway. Reading alleges the bump caused Reading to lose control of the motorcycle and fall.

On December 19, 2023, Reading filed a complaint against Defendant The People of the State of California (the State), erroneously sued as the State of California and California Department of Transportation, as well as Does 1-100, alleging causes of action for (1) dangerous condition of public property and (2) vicarious liability.

On January 30, 2025, the State filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for February 25, 2025, with a post-mediation status conference/trial setting conference on May 21, 2025.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The State requests judicial notice of the distance between I-10 exits for White Avenue and Dudley Street as displayed in a screenshot from Apple Maps. The State’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h). (See Maksimow v. City of South Lake Tahoe (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 514, 519, fn. 6.)

ANALYSIS

The State moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Reading’s first cause of action for dangerous condition of public property on the grounds that Reading fails to adequately allege the existence of a dangerous condition. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the State’s motion.

Legal Standard

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

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, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).)¿“A motion for judgment on the pleadings is akin to a general demurrer; it tests the sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action. [Citation.] The court must assume the truth of all factual allegations in the complaint, along with matters subject to judicial notice.” (Wise v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 725, 738.)

Dangerous Condition of Public Property

The elements of a cause of action for a dangerous condition of public property are “(1) a dangerous condition of public property; (2) a foreseeable risk, arising from the dangerous condition, of the kind of injury the plaintiff suffered; (3) actionable conduct in connection with the condition, i.e., either negligence on the part of a public employee in creating it, or failure by the entity to correct it after notice of its existence and dangerousness; (4) a causal relationship between the dangerous condition and the plaintiff’s injuries; and (5) compensable damage sustained by the plaintiff.” (Cole v. Town of Los Gatos (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 749, 758.)

Dangerous condition is defined as “a condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial or insignificant) risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.” (Gov. Code, § 830.) While negligence may ordinarily be generally pleading, causes of action against a public entity must be pleaded with particularity. (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795.)

Discussion

In this case, the Complaint alleges Reading hit a “sudden bump in the roadway” that was located in the westbound HOV lane of I-10 to the west of White Avenue. (Complaint, ¶ 7-8.) The State argues the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish how the sudden bump in the roadway constituted a dangerous condition. (Motion, p. 5:15-17.) The State also argues the Complaint fails to establish the exact location of the alleged dangerous condition beyond a vague description of it being to the west of White Avenue. (Motion, p. 5:12-19.)

The court agrees the Complaint is insufficiently pled as it does not allege any facts to establish how the sudden bump in the roadway meets the statutory definition of a dangerous condition outlined in Government Code section 830. Instead, the Complaint makes the conclusory allegation that the subject area, including the sudden bump, was a dangerous condition created by the State. (Complaint, ¶ 12.)

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the State’s motion with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is given twenty (20) days leave to amend.