Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV31556, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV31556    Hearing Date: April 23, 2025    Dept: 45

EVELYN THREATT VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Date of Hearing:        April 23, 2025                                     Trial Date:       None set

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        24STCV31556

Moving Party:            Defendants State of California and Attorney General Rob Bonta

Responding Party:     Plaintiff Evelyn Threatt

Meet and Confer:      Attempted. (Lake Decl. ¶2.)

BACKGROUND

On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff Evelyn Threatt filed a complaint. On December 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges several altercations with staff at several facilities that appear to provide services for the homeless. Plaintiff alleges it was the Attorney General’s responsibility to “safeguard” Californians, and California has allowed funding towards these non-profit organizations without any oversight.

[TENTATIVE] RULING:

Defendants State of California and Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Defendants State of California and Attorney General Rob Bonta move for judgment on the pleadings and request dismissal of this action. Defendants make the motion on the grounds that the First Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action.

It is well established in California that either prior to trial or at the trial the plaintiff or the defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings and that the appropriate ground for such a motion is the same as that arguable by general demurrer, namely, the failure to state a cause of action or defense. (Dobbins v. Hardister (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 787, 791; See also Sofias v. Bank of America (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 583, 586 [The non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings can be made at any time, even during trial, since the grounds for a general demurrer are never waived.].)  

The standard for ruling on 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 (citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216).) Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.)

Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds Plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the claims presentation requirements; the FAC fails to allege a statutory basis for liability against Defendants; there is no liability as a matter of law; and the allegations are insufficient.

First, the court finds the complaint fails to address any compliance with the claims presentation requirement. Under the Government Claims Act, no action may be brought against a public entity for money or damages unless a timely written claim has been presented to, and acted on or deemed rejected by, the public entity.  Stockett v. Association of Cal. Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Authority (2004) 34 Cal.4th 441, 447.  Compliance with the Government Claims Act’s claim presentation requirements is a condition precedent to maintaining an action against a government entity.¿ City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 454 (City of San Jose) (“failure to file a claim is fatal to the cause of action”); Johnson v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 692, 697 (“Compliance with the claims provisions is mandatory”). 

Here, there are no allegations that Plaintiff presented a government claim to the State of California or Attorney General Bonta. Because compliance is mandatory, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings must be granted. The court notes to be timely, a government claim based on personal injury must be presented to the public entity within six months of the date the cause of action accrued. (Gov. Code, § 911.2(a).)

Moreover, the court finds Plaintiff has failed to allege any statutory liability against Defendants. Under the Government Claims Act, “there is no common law tort liability for public entities in California; instead, such liability must be based on statute.” (Guzman v. County of Monterey (2009) 46 Cal.4th 887, 897.) The complaint does not allege any statute which would declare Defendants liable. In addition, Plaintiff has made only general and conclusory allegations. Plaintiff alleges it is the Attorney General’s responsibility to safeguard Californias from harm. However, Plaintiff has not provided any authority that the Attorney General has a duty to safeguard Californias. Lastly, as noted by Defendants, it is the responsibility of counties to assist homeless, destitute persons. (See Welf. & Inst. Code §17000; Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1104, fn. 18.) 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.