Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV06746, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06746    Hearing Date: September 26, 2024    Dept: 29

Morales v. City of Los Angeles
23STCV06746
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Tentative

The motion is granted without leave to amend.

Background

On March 28, 2023, Elka Paola Orrego Morales (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), Kingsley Project LLC (“Kingsley”), SAC-MM Properties LLC (“SAC-MM”), and Does 1 through 50 for (1) dangerous condition of public property, (2) general negligence, and (3) premises liability arising out of trip and fall on the sidewalk “at or near 951 S. Harvard Boulevard” in Los Angeles on May 3, 2022.  (Complaint, ¶ 8.)

On June 8, 2023, County filed its answer.

On June 21, 2023, Kingsley and SAC-MM filed their answers.

On June 27, 2023, City filed its answer.  Five days earlier, on June 22, 2024, City also filed a cross-complaint against Kingsley, SAC-MM, and Roes 1 through 10.

On July 14, 2023, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed County.

On November 14, 2023, Kingsley filed an answer to City’s cross-complaint and also filed a cross-complaint against City and Moes 1 through 20.  

On December 8, 2023, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed the causes of action in the complaint against SAC-MM. 

On December 13, 2023, SAC-MM filed an answer to City’s cross-complaint.

On December 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against City, County, Kingsley, SAC-MM, and Does 1 through 50.  In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that the incident occurred “at or near 939 S. Kingsley Drive” in Los Angeles. (FAC, ¶ 8.)

On January 30, 2024, Kingsley filed an answer to the FAC.

On February 15, 2024, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed the causes of action in the FAC against SAC-MM.  On June 12, 2024, the Court, at the request of City, dismissed the causes of action in City’s cross-complaint against SAC-MM.

On August 9, 2024, City filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings, along with a request for judicial notice. Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 12, 2024 (which Kingsley joined in), and City filed a reply on September 17.

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, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).) 

“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 granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322; accord Templo v. State (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 730, 735; Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216; see also 1 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial [2024] ¶ 7:275.)   

Request for Judicial Notice

City requests judicial notice of Plaintiff’s government claim. Plaintiff does not oppose the request.

“If a plaintiff alleges compliance with the claims presentation requirement, but the public records do not reflect compliance, the governmental entity can request the court to take judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c) that the entity's records do not show compliance.” (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 376.)

The request for judicial notice of Plaintiff’s claim is granted.

Discussion

As a preliminary matter, moving party presents a declaration that satisfied the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a)(3)(B).  (Song Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)

Turning to the merits, the Government Claims Act establishes detailed procedures for claims against public entities. 

In general, injured parties must begin by presenting their claims to the public entity.  (Gov. Code, §§ 905, 910, 910.2.)  Subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, “no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented … until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the [entity], or has been deemed to have been rejected.”  (Gov. Code, § 945.4.)  The claim must include certain specific information, including “The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.”  (Gov. Code, § 910, subd. (c).)

The purpose of the claim presentment requirement is “to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.” (Stockett v. Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Auth. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 441, 446 [quoting City of San Jose v. Super. Ct. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 455].)  If the matter is not resolved and litigation follows, the plaintiff may, and often does, elaborate and provide more details in the complaint regarding the factual and legal basis for relief that plaintiff seeks.  (Stockett, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 447; Hernandez v. City of Stockton (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1222, 1231.)  Adding such detail does not provide a basis to challenge the complaint, so long as the factual basis for the causes of action in the complaint is “fairly reflected” in the claim filed with the government entity.  (Stockett, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 447.)  But the complaint may not be based on “an entirely different set of facts” or some other “complete shift in [the] allegations.”  (Ibid.; see also Hernandez, supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 1231; Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 787, 794.)

In this case, Plaintiff submitted a claim to City stating that she was injured by a defect in the sidewalk “at or near 951 S. Harvard Blvd.”  (Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. A.)  In the original complaint, Plaintiff also identified the site of the accident as “at or near 951 S. Harvard Blvd.”  (Complaint, ¶ 8.)

In the FAC, however, Plaintiff now alleges that she was injured by a defect in the sidewalk “at or near 939 S. Kingsley Dr.”  (FAC, ¶ 9.)

These are two different addresses on two different streets in the City of Los Angeles.  According to Plaintiff’s counsel, the distance between the two addresses is approximately 200 feet.  (Kantzabedian Decl., ¶ 12 & Exh. D.) 

Plaintiff’s claim with City did not give City adequate notice of the location of the alleged defect in the sidewalk.  To the contrary, Plaintiff is now impermissibly shifting her allegations regarding a critical fact – the location of the defective sidewalk.  In investigating Plaintiff’s claim, and deciding whether to attempt to settle it, City would reasonably assume that the location in the claim was approximately accurate and investigate whether there was a sidewalk defect at or near 951 South Harvard Boulevard that could have caused Plaintiff’s injuries.  Nothing in Plaintiff’s claim, however, would have put City on notice to investigate potential sidewalk defects on another street, at or near 939 South Kingsley Drive.

In her claim with City, Plaintiff asserted injuries from a sidewalk defect at a completely different location than the one she now alleges in the FAC.  In light of this complete shift in Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court finds that the cause of action in the FAC is not fairly reflected in the claim submitted to City by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff also argues that City has waived this argument by delay.  The legal authorities and the facts identified by Plaintiff do not establish waiver.

Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.

Plaintiff does not seek leave to amend or provide any argument as to how this pleading defect can be addressed or cured by amendment.  Accordingly, the motion is granted without leave to amend.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.