Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 22STCV34286, Date: 2023-11-28 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: Jessica Martinez v. Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS)

1. An Order for Judgment on the Pleadings for failure to state a cause of action.

On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff Jessica Martinez (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) (Defendant) with causes of action for Emotional Distress, Property Damage, Torture, and Discrimination. According to the Complaint, in July 2013, Plaintiff went to a DPSS office to apply for benefits for her four citizen children. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant denied her benefits and refused to hold the benefits for more time, as they usually did, which cut off her food stamps. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges Defendant used racist slurs, allowed other clients to harass her while inside the office, and shared her information with other agencies without her permission.[1] Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants allowed others to open benefits accounts using her name. Plaintiff alleges new complaints beginning October 1, 2022 concerning her benefits.

On July 14, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings. On October 24, 2023, the court continued the hearing to November 28, 2023.

Plaintiff’s opposition was due on or before November 13, 2023. As of November 20, 2023, no opposition has been filed.

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings if (i) the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint, or (ii) the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action alleged in the complaint. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (CCP) § 438(b)(2), and subd. (c).) “The standard of review for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a general demurrer: We treat the pleadings as admitting all of the material facts properly pleaded, but not any contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law contained therein. We may also consider matters subject to judicial notice.” (Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara (2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th 1281, 1298.)

The grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30(a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318.) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Ibid.)

A demurrer assumes the truth of all factual, material allegations properly pled in the challenged pleading. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.) No matter how unlikely or improbable, the plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.¿ App. 3d 593, 604.) But this does not include contentions; deductions; conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice.¿ (Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.)

As with demurrers and motions to strike, and subject to enumerated exceptions, the parties are required to meet and confer prior to filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings.[2] (CCP § 439, § 430.41, § 435.) According to the Declaration of Calvin House, Defendant attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff via email and mail on June 29, 2023 with no response. (House ¶¶ 2-3.) While this does not look like adequate meet and confer efforts, failure to meet and confer is not sufficient grounds to deny the motion. (CCP §§ 430.41, subd. (a)(4); 435.5 subd. (a)(4).)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s claim fails because she did not allege that she presented a claim for damages to the County before filing suit and she did not establish a statutory basis for County liability.[3]

Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not present a claim for damages before she filed the lawsuit and it would be time-barred if she did so now because more than six months has elapsed since the claim accrued. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

Unless otherwise exempted, “all claims for money or damages against local public entities” “shall be presented” before filing suit. (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 905, 945.4.) “A claim relating to a cause of action for death or injury to a person or to personal property . . . shall be presented . . . not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. A claim relating to any other cause of action shall be presented . . . not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action.” (Cal. Gov. Code § 911.2(a).)

Upon reviewing the Complaint, the court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff did not present her claim to the County before filing suit. Here, Plaintiff’s claims sound in tort because she seeks damages for Emotional Distress, Property Damage, Torture, and Discrimination. Plaintiff alleges her claims accrued in October 2022. More than six months has passed from that date. It has also been more than one year since that date. Either way, Plaintiff did not timely present her claims to the County before filing suit.[4]

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Cal. Gov. Code § 815 provides that, “except as otherwise provided by statute, “(A) a public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person. (B) The liability of a public entity . . . is subject to immunity of the public entity provided by statute . . . and is subject to any defenses that would be available to the public entity if it were a private person.” A plaintiff must specifically allege the statutory violation to “meet her burden of stating and substantiating a legally sufficient claim of unlawfulness.” (Marzec v. California Public Employees Retirement System (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 889, 901-902 [internal citations omitted].)

Upon reviewing the Complaint, the court agrees with Defendant. Plaintiff did not allege any statutory violations. Instead, Plaintiff generally alleges “human rights violations” by declining to issue food stamps, denial of benefits, and somehow forcing her daughter to perform labor.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted with or without leave to amend. (CCP § 438(h)(1).) Leave to amend should be granted “if there is any reasonably possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action.” (Virginia G. v. ABC Unified School Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1848, 1852.) “[D]enial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of distraction if the pleading does not show on its face that it is incapable of amendment.” (Ibid.)

Upon reviewing the Complaint, and out of an abundance of caution, the court will allow Plaintiff one opportunity to amend her Complaint to allege facts that she presented her claim to the County before filing and to allege specific statutes that Defendant allegedly violated. The court cautions that, absent such amendments, there is no reasonable possibility that Plaintiff can state a good cause of action.

[1] Such harassment was allegedly a result of Plaintiff’s complaining against Local and Federal Authorities.

[2] The exceptions to the meet and confer requirement do not apply here.

[3] Defendant also contends that the court must hold Plaintiff, in pro per, to the same standards as if she were represented by counsel. Consistent with the law, the court will use its discretion to take reasonable steps to enable Plaintiff as a pro se litigant has the opportunity to be heard. (Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3B(8).)

[4] Plaintiff does not allege that she did present her claims before filing suit.