On 07/10/2019 NATHAN BROWN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.
Disposed - Other Disposed
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
BROWN NATHAN E.
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
CITY OF TORRANCE
11/6/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)
11/7/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling
10/28/2019: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal
10/3/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike
10/3/2019: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice
10/3/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Jonathan J. Mott Regarding Meet and Confer for Demurrer
9/5/2019: Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint
9/5/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint
8/15/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
7/10/2019: Complaint - Complaint
7/10/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint
7/10/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
7/10/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
7/10/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketUpdated -- Demurrer - without Motion to Strike: Filed By: TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Defendant); Result: Sustained without Leave to Amend; Result Date: 11/06/2019Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)Read MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 11/06/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 11/06/2019; Result Type to HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/06/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 11/06/2019Read MoreRead Less
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/13/2022 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 11/06/2019Read MoreRead Less
DocketOn the Amended Complaint (1st) filed by NATHAN E. BROWN on 09/05/2019, entered Request for Dismissal without prejudice filed by NATHAN E. BROWN as to City of TorranceRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: NATHAN E. BROWN (Plaintiff); As to: City of Torrance (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by: TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration of Jonathan J. Mott Regarding Meet and Confer for Demurrer; Filed by: TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 10/01/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Rescheduled by Party was rescheduled to 10/09/2019 08:30 AMRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: NATHAN BROWN (Plaintiff); As to: TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Defendant); Service Date: 07/23/2019; Service Cost: 45.00; Service Cost Waived: NoRead MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/06/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/13/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by: NATHAN BROWN (Plaintiff); As to: TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: NATHAN BROWN (Plaintiff); As to: TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: NATHAN BROWN (Plaintiff); As to: TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 19STLC06438 Hearing Date: November 06, 2019 Dept: 94
Brown v. Torrance, et al.
DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(CCP § 430.10)
Defendant Torrance Unified School District’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.
Plaintiff Nathan E. Brown (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on July 10, 2019. Plaintiff Nathan E. Brown (“Plaintiff”) then filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant Torrance Unified School District (“Defendant”) for (1) negligence and (2) premises liability on September 5, 2019. In response, Defendant filed a Demurrer to the FAC on October 3, 2019. Plaintiff dismissed former Defendant City of Torrance on October 28.
The Court is satisfied with Defendant’s meet-and-confer effort. (Mott Decl. ¶ 5.) Accordingly, the Court turns to the merits of the Demurrer.
II. Legal Standard
“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 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.) 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 at p. 240.)
A. Request for Judicial Notice
The Court treats “the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.’’ [Citation.] In addition to the complaint’s allegations, [the Court] consider[s] matters that must or may be judicially noticed. [Citations.]” (Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 390, 400.) “Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter unless authorized or required by law.” (Evid. Code § 450.)
Defendant’s request for judicial notice of Exhibits “1” (Plaintiff’s Government Tort Claim dated October 29, 2018) and “2” (Letter of Rejection of Plaintiff’s Claim) is GRANTED under Evid. Code § 452(c). (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 369, fn. 1 [“The court may take judicial notice of the filing and contents of a government claim . . .”].)
B. Gov. Code § 945.6
Under the Government Claim Act, “all governmental liability is statutory, except as required by the state or federal Constitutions. [Citation.]” (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 370.) “‘Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is . . . ‘‘‘a condition precedent to plaintiff's maintaining an action against defendant’’’ [citations], and thus an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] With certain exceptions, once a claim has been presented and rejected, a plaintiff has six months to file a lawsuit. (Gov. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)(1).) These time periods are generally not tolled while the plaintiff is a minor. [Citations.]” (A.M. v. Ventura Unified School Dist. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1257, emphasis added.)
Defendant contends that because Plaintiff failed to file this action within six months after his government tort claim was rejected by Defendant as required by Gov. Code, § 945.6, this action is time-barred. (Demurrer pp. 4-6.) The Court agrees.
Based on the judicially noticed Letter of Rejection of Plaintiff’s Claim (Exh. “2”), Plaintiff’s negligence and premises liability claims against Defendant were rejected on December 11, 2018. Plaintiff had six months after that point to file the instant action, but he waited almost seven months to file this action. Accordingly, this action is time-barred.
C. Leave to Amend
“When a demurrer is sustained, ‘the plaintiff must be given leave to amend his or her complaint when there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. [Citations.] ‘The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff.’ [Citation.]” (Aghaji v. Bank of America, N.A. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1118-1119.)
Here, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition and explain how it could cure the defect identified above. The Court discerns no reasonable possibility that Plaintiff could cure the defect identified herein. Therefore, the Court is inclined to sustain the instant Demurrer without leave to amend but is open to further briefing from Defendant at the hearing on this issue.
IV. Conclusion & Order
For the stated reasons, the unopposed Demurrer to the FAC is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases