Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV09528, Date: 2024-04-03 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 20STCV09528    Hearing Date: April 3, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant City of Compton.

Tentative

The motion is denied.

Background

On March 6, 2020, Arturio Denise Halloway (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against City of Compton (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100 for damages arising from a trip and fall on October 1, 2018.

Defendant filed its answer on May 25, 2021.

On February 22, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 18, 2024. Defendant filed a reply on March 26, 2024.

Legal Standard

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, subds. (b)(1) & (c)(1)(B)(ii).) 

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself.”  (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 877.)  “A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.”  (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)  The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, whether the pleading states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, considering only the matters appearing on the face of the pleading plus matters subject to judicial notice..  (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322 (citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216).)   

Meet and Confer Requirement

The Court finds that the meet and confer requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 439 has been satisfied.  (Westmoreland Decl., ¶ 3; Reply, at 2:16-23.)

Discussion

Plaintiff presented a claim to Defendant for damages, alleging that she tripped and fell on an uneven sidewalk near the corner of Poinsettia and Myrrh in Compton. (Complaint, Exh. A.) Defendant rejected the claim. (Id., Exh. B.) Plaintiff then filed her complaint, alleging (among other things) that the sidewalk was in a dangerous condition; that Defendant knew or should have known that the sidewalk was in a dangerous condition; that Plaintiff tripped and fell on the dangerous condition of the sidewalk, causing injury to her.  (Id., ¶¶ 8-11.)

That is sufficient to state a cause of action against Defendant for a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835.  (See, e.g., Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, 653.)

Defendant claims that the complaint is nonetheless defective because there is no label of the cause of action as required by California Rules of Court, rule 2.112, and therefore the complaint is uncertain. (Motion, at pp. 5-6.)  But demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and will be sustained only where a complaint is so unclear that the defendant cannot reasonably determine what causes of action are being asserted against it.  (See A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.)  Here, there is no doubt that Plaintiff is asserting a claim under Government Code section 835, and, indeed, it is clear from Defendant’s answer that Defendant understood that Plaintiff is asserting such a claim. (See Answer.) 

Notwithstanding the technical deficiency of the complaint under Rule 2.112, the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Government Code section 835, puts Defendant on notice of the cause of action asserted against it, and is not uncertain.  The motion is denied.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.