Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV04693, Date: 2024-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04693    Hearing Date: September 16, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     September 16, 2024               TRIAL DATE: March 4, 2025

CASE:                         Daimon McGuire v. City of Los Angeles

CASE NO.:                 23STCV04693           

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant City of Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 09/11/24

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for violation of civil rights that was filed on March 3, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully arrested by officers of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Defendant the City of Los Angeles moves for judgment on the pleadings.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall have 30 days leave from the date of this order to file a First Amended Complaint.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant the City of Los Angeles moves for judgment on the pleadings.

Legal Standard

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the functional equivalent of a general demurrer.  (Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co. of Am. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198).  Like demurrers, motions for judgment on the pleadings challenge the legal sufficiency of the allegations, not their veracity.  (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994). Any defects must either appear on the face of the pleading, or else be taken by judicial notice.  (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-22).  The parties’ ability to prove their respective claims is of no concern.  (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 99.)  Though the Court must accept the allegations of the complaint and answer as true (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515), it will not do so for “conclusions of law or fact, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or [judicially noticed] facts…” (Stevenson Real Estate Servs., Inc. v. CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Servs., Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1219-20).

Meet and Confer

Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who has filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings and file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 439(a).) However, an insufficient meet-and-confer process is not grounds to grant or deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439(a)(4).)

The Declaration of Rebecca E. Hunter in support of the Motion states that she wrote a meet-and-confer letter to Plaintiff on February 5, 2024, and conferred with him telephonically on February 12, 2024, but that the parties were not able to resolve this dispute. (Declaration of Rebecca E. Hunter ISO Mot. ¶¶ 2-3; Exh. A.) Defendant has therefore satisfied its statutory meet-and-confer obligation.

Analysis

            Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that Plaintiff does not and cannot allege compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act.

The California Tort Claims Act states that no person may sue a public entity or public employee for money or damages unless a timely written claim has been presented to and denied by the public entity. (Gov. Code § 945.4.) A claim must be presented to the public entity within six months after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code. § 911.2.)

Although Defendant characterizes the claim presentation requirement as a jurisdictional limitation, it is more accurately construed as an element of a claim asserted against a public entity. (See, e.g., City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 454 [failure to present a claim “is fatal to the cause of action”].) In any event, Defendant accurately states that Plaintiff has not alleged compliance with the claim presentation requirement nor a basis to be excused from that requirement. Defendant is therefore entitled to judgment on the pleadings.

//

Leave to Amend

When a demurrer is sustained, the Court determines whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318).  When a plaintiff “has pleaded the general set of facts upon which his cause of action is based,” the court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint, since plaintiff should not “be deprived of his right to maintain his action on the ground that his pleadings were defective for lack of particulars.” (Reed v. Norman (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 892, 900.) Accordingly, California law imposes the burden on the plaintiffs to demonstrate the manner in which they can amend their pleadings to state their claims against a defendant.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) “Denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the complaint shows on its face it is incapable of amendment.  [Citation.]  Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given." (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.)

Defendant argues that amendment is not possible because Plaintiff has not presented a timely Government Claim relating to his alleged arrest. Although Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was arrested on November 12, 2022, that information is not apparent from the face of the Complaint. Defendant also contends, based on a Declaration of Michael Valdivia, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Los Angeles, that Plaintiff did not present a Government claim on or before November 15, 2023. Defendant did not request judicial notice of this extrinsic document. Moreover, it would not be proper to take judicial notice of that letter, as it does not fall within an enumerated category under Evidence Code section 452, nor is it a statement of information which is not reasonably subject to dispute and capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. (See Evid. Code § 452.) As nothing on the face of the pleadings demonstrates the impossibility of amendment, the Court is obligated to grant leave to amend to provide Plaintiff a fair opportunity to correct the defects in the Complaint, if possible.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall have 30 days leave from the date of this order to file a First Amended Complaint, alleging compliance with the claim presentation requirement or a basis to be excused from that requirement.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2024                            ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.