Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV29005, Date: 2025-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV29005    Hearing Date: May 9, 2025    Dept: 29

Jimenez v. County of Los Angeles
23STCV29005
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On November 28, 2023, Manuel R. Jimenez, Eva Ramirez, and Tranquilino Medina Ceja (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against County of Los Angeles (“County”), LA County Sheriff’s Dept., Deputy Leticia A. Fazzini, and Does 1 through 20 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of accident on February 21, 2023, on Manchester Avenue near Denker Avenue in Los Angeles.

On February 3, 2025, County (for itself and as erroneously sued as LA County Sheriff’s Dept.) filed an answer.

On April 7, 2025, County filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings.

No opposition has been filed.

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 Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Torres Construction Corp. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 480, 494; 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.)   

Discussion

As a preliminary matter, County presents a declaration that moving party met and conferred with Plaintiffs.  (Greco Decl., ¶¶ 6-8 & Exh. C.)

County moves for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that Plaintiffs failed to file a timely claim as required by the Government Claims Act.

The Government Claims Act establishes detailed procedures and specific time limits for claims against public entities.  Under Government Code section 945.4, “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.”  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].)

The process begins, first, with the presentation of the claim to the public entity.  (Gov. Code, §§ 905, 910, 910.2.)  Any claim against a public entity for wrongful death or personal injuries must be presented “not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.”  (Gov. Code, § 911.2.) 

If a party misses the deadline for submitting a timely claim to the public entity, the party may apply for leave to present an untimely claim.  (Gov. Code § 911.4, subd. (a).)  The application must be “presented to the public entity … within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim.” (Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (b).) 

If an application to present a late claim is denied, the claimant may file a petition for a court order “relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4.” (Gov. Code § 946.6, subd. (a).)  “When an application to file a late claim is itself not timely filed, however, the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under section 946.6.” (County of Los Angeles v. Super. Ct. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1313-14.)  

Here, County has shown that Plaintiffs did not file a claim with County until September 10, 2024.  (Greco Decl., ¶ 5 & Exh. B.)  This was more than 18 months after the accident – long past the six-month deadline (and past the one-year deadline for seeking leave to file a late claim). 

Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion, argued that they filed a timely claim, or sought leave to file a late claim.  Plaintiffs have not complied with the claim presentment requirement of the Government Claims Act.

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

As there is no reason to believe that Plaintiffs could cure this defect by amendment, the motion is granted without leave to amend.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion of the County of Los Angeles for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.

County is ordered to give notice.

County is ordered to submit a proposed judgment to the Court.

The Court sets an OSC re Entry of Judgment.