On 11/27/2019 DALIA MARIONA PALADA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CITY HALL LA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
*******0965
11/27/2019
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JAMES E. BLANCARTE
PALADA DALIA MARIONA
VISALIA POLICE
CITY HALL LA
LAUBER NICHOLAS DAVID
8/25/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)
3/19/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
2/6/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice
2/6/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike
11/27/2019: Complaint - Complaint
11/27/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint
11/27/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
11/27/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
11/27/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
11/27/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)
Hearing11/30/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service
Hearing05/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)
DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 08/25/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/25/2020; Result Type to Held
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 04/01/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 08/25/2020 10:30 AM
DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by: City Hall LA, (Defendant)
DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by: City Hall LA, (Defendant)
DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 04/01/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/30/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Dalia Mariona Palada (Plaintiff); As to: City Hall LA, (Defendant); Visalia Police (Defendant)
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Dalia Mariona Palada (Plaintiff)
DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Dalia Mariona Palada (Plaintiff)
DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Dalia Mariona Palada (Plaintiff)
Case Number: 19STLC10965 Hearing Date: August 25, 2020 Dept: 25
HEARING DATE: Tue., August 25, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25
CASE NAME: Palada v. City Hall, et al. COMP. FILED: 11-27-19
CASE NUMBER: 19STLC10965 DISC. C/O: 04-26-21
NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 05-11-21
TRIAL DATE: 05-26-21
PROCEEDINGS: DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Defendant City of Los Angeles
RESP. PARTY: None
DEMURRER
(CCP § 430.41)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.
SERVICE:
[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK
[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 21, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as of August 21, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
Background
On November 27, 2019, Plaintiff Dalia Mariona Palada (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against City Hall LA (“City of Los Angeles”), the State of California, Visalia Police, and LAPD (collectively, “Defendants”).
On February 6, 2020, Defendant City of Los Angeles filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. To date, no opposition has been filed.
Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant City of Los Angeles requests judicial notice of a declaration from Crystal Jones, in her official capacity as Deputy City Clerk, stating that Plaintiff has not filed a claim for damages with the City of Los Angeles. (Dem., RJN, ¶ 1, Exh. A.) Judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence of the document. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (c).) However, the court does not take judicial notice of the truth of the matters stated therein. (Cruz v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1131, 1134.)
Legal Standard
“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its
case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to
affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)
“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of
America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges
facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not
“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the
complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded
factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of
which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,
however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.
Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)
A general demurrer may be brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted or under section 430.10, subdivision (a), where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).)
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. (Id.)
Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)
Discussion
The instant Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a). (Dem., Lauber Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.)
Defendant City of Los Angeles demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint on the basis that (1) Plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Government Tort Claims Act, (2) the Complaint is conclusory, vague, and uncertain, and (3) the Complaint fails to state facts that constitute a cause of action because Defendant City of Los Angeles has no duty to act as Plaintiff alleges. (Demurrer, p. 2.)
First, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s form Complaint does not include any cause of action attachments as required. (See Compl., ¶ 10 [“each complaint must have one or more causes of action attached”].) (Italics added.)
Plaintiff’s Complaint checks off the boxes indicating that a motor vehicle and general negligence cause of action are being alleged. (Compl., ¶ 10.) However, her handwritten attachments state she is “demanding her biological and legal rights” over her son to “make sure he is OK with his father,” and “a medical release of no pregnancy and emergency assistance in deportation.” (Compl., pp. 5-6.) Plaintiff also makes general allegations that she suffered health complications, and appears to allege she was the victim of human trafficking and rape. (Compl., pp. 36, 40.) Plaintiff also refers to the penal code multiple times and alleges that a “crime” was “constantly occurring” without providing any specific details. (See Compl. generally.) However, it is unclear what cause of action she alleges against Defendant. Because Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and so broad, the Court cannot determine, and will not speculate, what cause of action she tries to allege.
Plaintiff also demands $6,000 in “ka-we-ah” reimbursement and $5,000 “of first attention.” (Compl., p. 34.) Government Code section 954.4 provides that “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 therefore 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’t Code, § 945.4.) “A claim relating to a cause of action for…injury to person or to personal property…shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” (Gov’t Code, § 911.2.)
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege any dates for the wrongdoings she alleges occurred. In addition, she has not alleged she presented her claim to the appropriate government entities before proceeding with this action. Thus, Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases