Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV02173, Date: 2024-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02173, Date: 2024-06-03 Tentative Ruling

On September 19, 2023, plaintiff Kristina Hovakimyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on November 13, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that she was injured in a motor vehicle incident when defendant Miguel Santoscoy (“Santoscoy”) negligently operated a motor vehicle on June 7, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that Santoscoy was employed by co-defendants City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles, and that the three defendants owned and entrusted the vehicle to one another. On November 17, 2023, the City of Los Angeles was dismissed from the complaint at Plaintiff’s request.

On January 16, 2024, County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) filed this demurrer on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state that she complied with the Government Tort Claims Act.

A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.) When a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.)

Prior to filing a suit against a public entity, a plaintiff must comply with the Government Tort Claims Act, which states, in part: “no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented . . . until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board . . .” (Gov. Code, § 945.4.) A claim for death or injury to person or personal property shall be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).) The “failure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action.” (State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1237.) “[S]ubmission of a claim to a public entity pursuant to section 900 et seq. ‘is a condition precedent to a tort action and the failure to present the claim bars the action’” (Phillips v. Desert Hospital Dist. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 699, 708), and “failure to allege compliance constituted a failure to state a cause of action and subjected a complaint to a demurrer” (State of California, supra, 32 Cal.4th at pp. 1242-1243).

The FAC is a form complaint and Plaintiff did not check item 9a to indicate that she complied with the claims statute or explain in item 9b why she is excused from doing so. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against a public entity like Defendant.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant should be equitably estopped from asserting the claims presentation requirement as an affirmative defense. But Plaintiff does not submit any evidence that factual circumstances dictate the application of equitable estoppel, such as affirmative acts or statements by Defendant which would mislead or prevent Plaintiff from filing a claim. (See K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School District (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1229.) Therefore, this argument is unavailing.

Plaintiff also opposes the demurrer on the grounds that Plaintiff’s cause of action against Defendant did not accrue until sometime in July of 2023, when Plaintiff discovered that Santoscoy was acting within the course and scope of his employment for Defendant at the time of the accident and that Defendant would be providing insurance coverage. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶¶ 13-17, Exs. 9-10.) Furthermore, Plaintiff submitted a prelitigation claim on July 17, 2023, but the claim was rejected for untimeliness in a letter dated August 2, 2023. (Id., Exs. 11, 13.)

Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit because if a claim is rejected as untimely, a plaintiff still must file an application for leave to present a late claim before proceeding to filing suit in court. (Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (a).) This application must be filed “within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim.” (Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (b).)

Here, Defendant states – and Plaintiff does not dispute – that no application to present a late claim has been filed. Therefore, this suit is premature and the demurrer is sustained.

Additionally, based on the existing facts before the Court, there are no facts that may be alleged to show why Plaintiff is excused from complying with the claim presentation requirement; the lawsuit is precluded because it was not preceded by the rejection of an application to present late claim. (Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor District (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 211, 221 [no amendment allowed when suit is premature].) The Court acknowledges that this may change if: (1) Plaintiff’s application is denied and (2) Plaintiff subsequently acquires relief from the claims presentation by petitioning the Court pursuant to Government Code section 946.6. But the Court will not issue an advisory ruling on a petition that has not yet been filed. Accordingly, the Court does not grant leave to amend the FAC.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend and Defendant is dismissed from this action without prejudice.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.