Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case 21STCV23881 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. 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 do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

CASE NAME: Marlin D. Samuel v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

1. An order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the only cause of action for breach of contract.

On June 28, 2021, Plaintiff Marlin D. Samuel (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant.”) The complaint is for one cause of action breach of contract. The complaint alleges that an oral contract was entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant during a hearing, where Plaintiff read terms of the contract and Defendant’s employee accepted the offer.

On August 16, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on August 29, 2022. Defendant filed a Reply on September 7, 2022. Plaintiff filed a reply to the Opposition on September 7, 2022.[1]

California Code of Civil Procedure section 438 states, in relevant part: “(b)(1) A party may move for judgment on the pleadings. . . . (c)(1) The motion provided for in this section may only be made on one of the following grounds: . . . . (B) If the moving party is a defendant, that either of the following conditions exist: (i) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint. (ii) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.”

A motion for judgment on the pleadings “has the purpose and effect of a general demurrer.” (Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 146 (citation omitted).) “[T]he trial court generally confines itself to the complaint and accepts as true all material facts alleged therein. As appropriate, however, it may extend its consideration to matters that are subject to judicial notice. In this, it performs essentially the same task that it would undertake in ruling on a general demurrer.” (Id. (citations omitted).) The grounds for motion for judgment on the pleadings shall appear on either “the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (CCP §438(d).)

A party moving for judgment on the pleadings must meet and confer in person or telephonically with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to determine if an agreement can be reached regarding the claims raised in the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 439, subd. (a).) The moving party must file a declaration detailing the meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc. § 439, subd. (a)(3).)

The Court may take judicial notice of the existence of the records, but not the truth of matters asserted in such records. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1565). As a result, although the court may take judicial notice that the documents exists, the Court may not take judicial notice of the truth of the facts in the documents.

Additionally, Evidence Code only allows the Court to take judicial notice of certain types of documents. The court may take judicial notice of “official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States,” “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States,” and “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code § 452, subds. (c), (d), and (h).) The Evidence Code does not allow the Court to take judicial notice of discovery responses or parts of cases, such as depositions.

Defendant requests that the Court take Judicial Notice of the following document:

Defendant moves for a judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

A breach of contract cause of action requires the plaintiff to establish “(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (D'Arrigo Bros. of California v. United Farmworkers of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 790, 800.)

Here, a review of the complaint and attachments indicates that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that a contract exists between Plaintiff and Defendant. “The parties' outward manifestations must show that the parties all agreed “upon the same thing in the same sense.” (Civ.Code § 1580.) If there is no evidence establishing a manifestation of assent to the “same thing” by both parties, then there is no mutual consent to contract and no contract formation.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 811.)

Plaintiff argues that during the hearing after Plaintiff stated, “if it’s a willful breach of contract knowing the rules and regulations set forth, then you subjugate yourself to state and federal penalties and fines outside the contractual agreement between Metro and Smart Union,” a contract was formed when Ms. Tonia Zanders, a , Director of Transportation Operations Zanders stated “Okay. Noted. Anything else?” (Complaint p. 53.) The entire transcript, even in a light considered most favorable to the Plaintiff, paints a different picture.

The transcript provided in the complaint was for a disciplinary hearing where Plaintiff was accused of misconduct. Ms. Zanders was a hearing officer. The transcript indicates that during the hearing, Zanders stated “Okay” and “noted” on at least two occasions in response to statements made by Plaintiff during argument he was making on why discipline should not be imposed. Plaintiff ended his argument about contractual agreement with “and that’s my conclusion.” (Complaint, Ex. P, pg. 53.) It is clear and unambiguous that Plaintiff was making an argument, not negotiating the terms of contract. Nothing in the complaint, specifically the transcript of the hearing, constitutes an offer, consideration, or mutual assent, all of which are required when forming a contract. Plaintiff arguing that the contract was made via oral consent because of the “Okay. Noted,” language is insufficient to constitute a contract.

Leave to amend should be liberally granted if there is a reasonable possibility an amendment could cure the defect. (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 1018,1035.) The Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that leave to amend should be granted, and that the defects can be cured by amendment. (“Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.” Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349). Here, it is inconceivable that Plaintiff can cure the defects as the alleged breach of contract stem from a hearing and the transcript has been provided. As such, leave to amend is DENIED.

[1]Plaintiff indicates that he was not served at his current address nevertheless he did not receive notice and copies of all moving papers and filed written responses.