DALIA MARIONA PALADA VS CITY HALL LA,, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC10965    Hearing Date: April 8, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:   Thu., April 8, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME:  Palada v. City Hall, LA, et al. COMPL. FILED: 11-27-21

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC10965 DISC. C/O: 04-26-21

NOTICE:   OK MOTION C/O: 05-11-21

PROCEEDINGS:     MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER CCP § 581(F)(2)

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant City of Los Angeles

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DISMISS

(CCP § 581)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. THE COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES IS HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

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 April 6, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of April 6, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On November 27, 2019, Plaintiff Dalia Mariona Palada (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against City of Los Angeles, erroneously sued as 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 a demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, which was granted with 20 days’ leave to amend on August 25, 2020. (8/25/20 Minute Order.) Defendant City of Los Angeles served Plaintiff with a Notice of Ruling on August 27, 2020 via regular mail.

Defendant City of Los Angeles filed the instant Motion to Dismiss Complaint Under CCP § 581(f)(2) (the “Motion”). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

The Court may dismiss a complaint as to a defendant when, after a demurrer to the complaint is sustained with leave to amend, the plaintiff fails to amend it within the time allowed by the Court and either party moves for dismissal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (f)(2).)

As noted above, on August 27, 2020, Defendant Los Angeles served Plaintiff with notice of the Court’s ruling granting its demurrer with 20 days’ leave to amend. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant City of Los Angeles.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. THE COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES IS HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

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

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:

1. 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.

1. 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.)

1. 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).)

1. 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.

1. 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.