Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22STCV10346, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10346    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On March 25, 2022, plaintiff Lorena F. Barrero (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Chekechea Pryor (“Pryor”) and the City of Inglewood (“City”) arising from a trip and fall that occurred on November 6, 2020. 

On April 29, 2022, City filed a demurrer arguing that Plaintiff failed to comply with the statute of limitations for commencing suit against a public entity as required by Government Code section 911.2(a). 

On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a petition for relief from the claim presentation requirements pursuant to Government Code section 946.6.  Plaintiff also filed an opposition brief to City’s demurrer on June 13, 2022. 

City has not opposed Plaintiff’s petition or filed a reply in support of its demurrer. 

The Court first addresses the merits of Plaintiff’s petition before turning to City’s demurrer. 

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

Petition for Relief of Claim Presentation Requirement

California Government Code section 946.6 provides that “[i]f an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4 [requiring a claim to be presented to a public entity before an action may be brought against the public entity].” (Govt. Code § 946.6(a).) The petition must be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied. (See id., § 946.6(b).) The court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4 if the court finds (1) the application to the board was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in Section 911.4(b); (2) was denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6; and (3) that one or more of the enumerated reasons applies. (See id., § 946.6(c).)  The enumerated reasons include (1) the failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect unless the public entity establishes that it would be prejudiced in the defense of the claim if relief is granted; (2) the person who sustained the alleged injury or loss was a minor during the time the claim was to be presented; (3) the person who sustained the alleged injury or loss was physically or mentally incapacitated during the time the claim was to be presented; and (4) the person who sustained the alleged injury or loss died before the expiration of the time to present the claim. (Id.) Section 911.4(b) provides that an application to the board to present a late claim must be made within one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (See id., § 911.4(b).) 

Demurrer

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (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.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.”  (SKF Farms v. Superior Ct. (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.”  (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

III.     DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on November 6, 2020.  The City contends it received her claim on September 14, 2021 and rejected the claim on the grounds that it was late.  However, Plaintiff submits evidence that a claim was mailed to City on April 30, 2021, as well as the County of Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles, before her six-month deadline to do so expired on May 6, 2021. 

It does not appear that Plaintiff’s original claim to the City was untimely as it appears that the claim was deposited on time and any delay was due to issues with the United States Postal Service (“USPS”).  Therefore, the Petition for relief is unnecessary.  Further, Defendant’s demurrer on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to timely submit a claim relies on extrinsic evidence from the USPS website that is not judicially noticeable for the truth of its contents.  Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED. 

IV.     CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Petition is DENIED as moot. 

Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.  Defendant is to file an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint within 20 days of the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.