This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/13/2021 at 04:03:09 (UTC).

OLIVIER SAINT-VICTOR VS SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT

Case Summary

On 09/24/2018 OLIVIER SAINT-VICTOR filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2094

  • Filing Date:

    09/24/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Appellant

SAINT-VICTOR OLIVIER

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Defendant and Respondent

SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorneys

ROHR CAROL ANN

BIANCO ERICA

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

3/1/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike) of 03/01/2021

3/1/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike) of 03/01/2021

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration AboutWalterRamirezDeclarationFalseStatement

3/4/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration AboutWalterRamirezDeclarationFalseStatement

Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal BV033493

6/24/2021: Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal BV033493

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

1/8/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

8/18/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING AND ORDER

6/9/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING AND ORDER

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

5/20/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application For An Order to Specially Set The Hearing Date for Defendant's Motin for Judgement on the Pleadings

11/12/2019: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application For An Order to Specially Set The Hearing Date for Defendant's Motin for Judgement on the Pleadings

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For An Order to Specially Set...)

11/13/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For An Order to Specially Set...)

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

11/15/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

12/5/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

2/6/2020: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

8/6/2019: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Compendium of Declarations and Evidence in Support of Defendant's Opposition

8/6/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Compendium of Declarations and Evidence in Support of Defendant's Opposition

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Errata to Defendant/Opposing Party's Responses and Supporting Evidence to Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts and Defendant's Material Facts Disputing Plainti

8/7/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Errata to Defendant/Opposing Party's Responses and Supporting Evidence to Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts and Defendant's Material Facts Disputing Plainti

Answer - Answer

1/3/2019: Answer - Answer

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

9/24/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

57 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/25/2021
  • DocketAppeal Record Delivered C1; Issued by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2021
  • DocketDeclaration About The Accrual Of The Cause Of Actions And GovernmentClaim Against The Santa Monica Police Department; Filed by: Olivier Saint-Victor (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketAppeal - Request for Court-Paid Clerk's Transcript Granted APPELLANT; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketAppeal - Request for Court-Paid Clerk's Transcript Granted RESPONDENT EXEMPT; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Appeal - Request for Court-Paid Clerk's Transcript Granted RESPONDENT EXEMPT: As To Parties: Santa Monica Police Department (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Appeal - Request for Court-Paid Clerk's Transcript Granted APPELLANT: As To Parties: Olivier Saint-Victor (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketAppeal - Original Clerk's Transcript 1 - 5 Volumes Certified 1 VOL 176 PAGES; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal BV033493; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2021
  • DocketJudgment [PRPOSED] JUDGMENT; Signed and Filed by: Santa Monica Police Department (Defendant); As to: Olivier Saint-Victor (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2021
  • DocketDeclaration of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint; Filed by: Olivier Saint-Victor (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
86 More Docket Entries
  • 12/07/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Olivier Saint-Victor (Plaintiff); As to: Santa Monica Police Department (Defendant); Service Date: 11/27/2018; Service Cost: 65.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Olivier Saint-Victor (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Olivier Saint-Victor (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Olivier Saint-Victor (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Olivier Saint-Victor (Plaintiff); As to: Santa Monica Police Department (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/23/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC12094    Hearing Date: March 01, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., March 1, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Saint-Victor v. Santa Monica Police Department

CASE NUMBER: 18STLC12094 COMPL. FILED: 09-24-18

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 03-21-21

MOTION C/O: 04-05-21

TRIAL DATE: 04-20-21

PROCEEDINGS: DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Santa Monica Police Department

RESP. PARTY: None

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.10, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Santa Monica Police Department’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint SUSTAINED WITHOUT 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 February 25, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 25, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On September 24, 2018, self-represented Plaintiff Oliver Saint-Victor (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for money damages against Defendant Santa Monica Police Department (“Defendant” or “SMPD”). On January 3, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On June 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment which the Court denied, in part, because the Complaint “[failed] to allege sufficient facts and law for the Court to determine what cause of action Plaintiff [was] bringing against [Defendant], a public entity.” (8/20/19 Minute Order.)

On February 6, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. After hearing oral argument from Plaintiff, the court granted Defendant’s motion, but also granted Plaintiff 20 days’ leave to amend his Complaint. (7/7/20 Minute Order.)

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on July 20, 2020. The FAC seeks $15,000.00 in damages for violation of the 14th Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Business and Professions Code sections 7500.3 and 7507.12(b), and the Tort Claims Act section 905. (FAC, pp. 4-5.) Defendant filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (the “Demurrer”) on August 18, 2020. Appearing to agree with Defendant’s Demurrer, Plaintiff attempted to file a Second Amended Complaint on September 24, 2020, seeking relief only under Business and Professions Code section 7500.3(5) and 7507.12(b) and under “Article 1 Section 13.” (SAC, p. 4.) The SAC, however, was rejected because leave to amend from the Court is required before filing another amended complaint. (9/24/20 Notice of Rejection of Electronic Filing.)

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant’s Demurrer.

  1. Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s Claim Against the City of Santa Monica dated August 29, 2018 and (2) letter from the City of Santa Monica Risk Management Liability Claims Unit dated September 20, 2018 addressed to Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff’s claim. (Dem., RJN, Exhs. B, C.)

Defendant’s request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c); Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Ca.App.4th 363, 369.)

  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. All other grounds listed in Section 430.10, including uncertainty under subdivision (f), are special demurrers. 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 Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a). (Dem., Bianco Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.)

In his FAC, Plaintiff alleges, in pertinent part: (1) that on August 8, 2017, Defendant SMPD was called for assistance regarding a dispute between Plaintiff and a repossession company not a party to this action; (2) that the repossession company’s objective was Plaintiff’s 1998 black Mercedes-Benz SLK230 Kompressor (the “Vehicle”); (3) that Plaintiff remained in the Vehicle, preventing the repossession company from taking the Vehicle; (4) that at least four officers arrived at the scene, including Officer Ramirez with Defendant SMPD who “demanded Plaintiffs keys and belongings before asking any questions assuming Plaintiff [was] at fault because of race”; (5) that the SMPD officers were hostile toward Plaintiff and made racial slurs and physical threats; (6) that Officer Ramirez directed Plaintiff to hand over the keys to the Vehicle to the repossession company; (7) that Defendant SMPD should not have facilitated the Vehicle’s repossession; (8) that Defendant SMPD “decided to involve themselves and conduct the repo because they wanted Plaintiff’s car very badly”; (9) that Defendant’s actions were willful, wanton, and malicious; (10) that Defendant SMPD violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right to due process; and (11) that Plaintiff has a recording of the incident. (FAC, pp. 1-3.)

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s FAC on the basis that it does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action under any theory. (Notice of Dem., p. 1.)

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 14th Amendment

42 U.S.C. section 1983 provides:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”

Under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services (1984) 436 U.S. 658, “a local government may not be held liable for employees’ violations of section 1983 unless ‘the constitutional violation was caused by [an] official policy, practice, or custom.’ [Citation.]” (Arce v. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1455, 1483.)

Here, Plaintiff only brings an action against Defendant SMPD, not against Officer Ramirez personally who is alleged to have committed a constitutional violation. Thus, Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant SMPD liable for its employee’s alleged violations. However, Plaintiff’s allegations do not describe an official policy, practice, or custom. Rather, Plaintiff’s constitutional violation claim is based on a single incident where a Santa Monica Police Department officer allegedly wrongfully participated in the repossession of Plaintiff’s Vehicle. Notably, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition demonstrating additional facts can be stated to sufficiently state a cause of action against Defendant.

B. Business and Professions Code section 7507.12(B) and 7500.3(5)

Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated Business and Professions Code section 7507.12, subdivision (b) because it “directed the repossession” of his Vehicle. (FAC, p. 5:4-10.) Section 7507.12, subdivision (b) states that “[n]o person other than the legal owner may direct a repossessor to release a vehicle without legal authority to do so.” (Italics added.) “ ‘Legal owner’ means a person holding a security interest in any collateral where the collateral is subject to a security agreement, a lien against any collateral, an assignment or a repossession order, or an interest in any collateral that is subject to a lease agreement.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7500.1, subd. (n).)

Here, Plaintiff’s FAC states that Plaintiff’s lender, his “car credit company” was involved in the repossession of the Vehicle. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff was not the legal owner of the Vehicle as defined in the Business and Profession Code. In addition, Plaintiff does not allege his Vehicle was wrongfully released. Thus, Section 7507.12, subdivision (b) is inapplicable. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition demonstrating he can allege additional facts to sufficiently state a cause of action under this Section.

Plaintiff’s reliance on Business and Professions Code section 7500.3, subdivision (5) is similarly unavailing. Section 7500.3, subdivision (5) only states that a repossession agency does not include “[a]n officer or employee of the United States of America or of this state or a political subdivision thereof, while the officer or employee is engaged in the performance of his or her official duties.” However, Section 7500.3 does not provide for an award of damages for an alleged violation of this statute. The FAC does not explain how this section entitles Plaintiff to the damages he seeks. Nor has Plaintiff filed an opposition demonstrating additional facts can be alleged to sufficiently state a cause of action against Defendant under this Section.

C. Compliance with California Tort Claims Act

Finally, Plaintiff alleges he is entitled to relief under the California Tort Claims Act. (FAC, p. 5:18-25.) The California Tort Claims Act establishes certain conditions that a plaintiff must meet before filing a lawsuit against a public entity. (State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1235.) The failure to satisfy those conditions bars the plaintiff from bringing suit against the entity. (Id.) In addition, 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.” (Id. at 1239.)

Plaintiff alleges that he presented a government claim which was denied. (FAC, p. 1:24-25.) In its Demurrer, Defendant presents a copy of the Claim Against the City of Santa Monica, received on August 29, 2018, which has been judicially noticed. Government Code section 911.2, subdivision (a), requires that a claim for injury to personal property be presented no later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wrongful actions occurred on August 8, 2017. (FAC, p. 1:26-28.) However, he did not file his claim with the City of Santa Monica until August 29, 2018, over a year after Plaintiff’s injury. (Dem., RJN, Exh. B.) Defendant also presents a letter from the City of Santa Monica, Liability Claims Unit dated September 20, 2018, which has been judicially noticed. (Id., Exh. C.) The letter explains that Plaintiff’s claim was being returned without any action taken because it was not presented within six (6) months after the date of occurrence and not presented within one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Id.)

Because Plaintiff did not comply with the government claims requirements by filing a timely claim with the City of Santa Monica before filing an action in superior court, the instant action is barred. (State of California v. Superior Court, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1235.) Thus, Defendant’s Demurrer as to the entire FAC is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Santa Monica Police Department’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC12094    Hearing Date: July 07, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTON FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(CCP § 438)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Santa Monica Police Department’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is SUSTAINED WITHOUT 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 July 6, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: Filed on March 2, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff Oliver Saint-Victor (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for money damages, in pro per, against Defendant Santa Monica Police Department (“Defendant”). On January 3, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On June 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment which the Court denied, in part, because the Complaint “[failed] to allege sufficient facts and law for the Court to determine what cause of action Plaintiff is bringing against [Defendant], a public entity.” (8/20/19 Minute Order.)

On February 6, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”). On December 9, 2019, Defendant received Plaintiff’s “Opposition to Motion to Summary Judgment on the Pleadings.” (Reply, Bianco Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) However, as the Opposition was not filed with the court, the Court cannot consider it. On March 2, 2020, Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s unfiled Opposition.

At the initial hearing on March 9, 2020, the Court declined to consider the merits of Defendant’s Motion for failure to include a meet and confer declaration and ordered Defendant to file and serve a supplemental declaration attesting to its meet and confer efforts. (3/9/20 Minute Order.) On April 3, 2020, Defendant filed the requested declaration.

  1. Request for Judicial Notice

Evidence Code section 452 provides that judicial notice may be taken of “official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States or of any state of the United States.” (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (c).) Judicial notice may also be taken of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.” (Id. at subd. (d).)

Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) Plaintiff’s tort claim form dated August 2018 and (2) letter returning Plaintiff’s tort claim form dated September 20, 2018. (Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), p. 2.) However, as these documents do not fall within either of the above categories, nor any other category listed under Evidence Code section 452, judicial notice is DENIED.

  1. Legal Standard

The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.) The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.)

Additionally, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone, at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a).)

  1. Discussion

  1. Meet and Confer Requirement

Defendant filed declarations on April 3, 2020 and May 21, 2020 demonstrating Defendant’s counsel met and conferred with Plaintiff but was unable to resolve the issues presented in this demurrer. (Bianco Supp. Decl., ¶ 10.)

B. Merits

The instant action arises from the repossession of Plaintiff’s vehicle by a third party and to which Defendant responded after receiving a call for service. (Mot., p. 3:3-5.) Defendant is a police department, a public entity.

Plaintiff’s one-page Complaint alleges that Defendant owes him “the sum of $15,000 due to illegal repossession of his vehicle, where [Defendant] violated the ‘color of state law,’ violates [sic] the ‘due process’ requirements of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Section 13, and 15 of the California Constitution.” (Compl., p. 2.) Plaintiff further alleges he refused to hand over the keys to the repossession company, but did so after an officer employed by Defendant “yelled racial slurs” and “threatened and demanded he give him the keys in which he did.” (Id.)

However, based on these vague and conclusory allegations, the Court is not able to determine what cause of action Plaintiff attempts to bring. Importantly, the Court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, in part, precisely because the Complaint failed to allege sufficient facts of fact or law. (8/20/19 Minute Order.) The Court noted that “[a]bsent some constitutional requirement, public entities may be liable only if a statute declares them to be liable.” (8/20/19 Minute Order.)

Despite this, Plaintiff made no efforts to amend its Complaint and correct the deficiencies previously noted by the Court. In addition, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition demonstrating that the Complaint can be amended to properly state a cause of action against Defendant. Furthermore, as the initial hearing date for this Motion was continued to allow Defendant to file a meet and confer declaration, Plaintiff had ample opportunity to file his Opposition but chose not to do so.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Santa Monica Police Department’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC12094    Hearing Date: March 09, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTON FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

(CCP § 438)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Santa Monica Police Department’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is CONTINUED to APRIL 29, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff Oliver Saint-Victor (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for money damages, in pro per, against Defendant Santa Monica Police Department (“Defendant”). On January 3, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On November 12, 2019, Defendant filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order to Specially Set the Hearing Date for Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Application”). The Application noted that the earliest hearing date Defendant was able to reserve for a motion for judgment on the pleadings was April 23, 2020, which is after the March 23, 2020 trial date. On November 13, 2019, the Court granted the Application and set a hearing for a motion for judgment on the pleadings for March 9, 2020. (11/13/19 Minute Order.)

On February 6, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”). On December 9, 2019, Defendant received Plaintiff’s “Opposition to Motion to Summary Judgment on the Pleadings.” (Reply, Bianco Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) However, as the Opposition was not filed with the court, the Court will not consider it. On March 2, 2020, Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s unfiled Opposition.

  1. Legal Standard

The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.) The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.)

Additionally, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone, at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a).)

  1. Discussion

  1. Meet and Confer Requirement

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Motion is not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a). Indeed, Defendant’s declaration does not even indicate that there was an attempt to meet and confer with Plaintiff prior to filing this Motion. Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff in person or by telephone and file a supplemental declaration attesting to such efforts.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Santa Monica Police Department’s Motio

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff Oliver Saint-Victor (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for money damages, in pro per, against Defendant Santa Monica Police Department (“Defendant”). On January 3, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On November 12, 2019, Defendant filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order to Specially Set the Hearing Date for Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Application”). The Application noted that the earliest hearing date Defendant was able to reserve for a motion for judgment on the pleadings was April 23, 2020, which is after the March 23, 2020 trial date. On November 13, 2019, the Court granted the Application and set a hearing for a motion for judgment on the pleadings for March 9, 2020. (11/13/19 Minute Order.)

On February 6, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”). On December 9, 2019, Defendant received Plaintiff’s “Opposition to Motion to Summary Judgment on the Pleadings.” (Reply, Bianco Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) However, as the Opposition was not filed with the court, the Court will not consider it. On March 2, 2020, Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s unfiled Opposition.

  1. Legal Standard

The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) Matters which are subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered without notice to the parties. Matters which are subject to permissive judicial notice must be specified in the notice of motion, the supporting points and authorities, or as the court otherwise permits. (Id.) The motion may not be supported by extrinsic evidence. (Barker v. Hull (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 236.)

Additionally, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone, at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a).)

  1. Discussion

  1. Meet and Confer Requirement

As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Motion is not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a). Indeed, Defendant’s declaration does not even indicate that there was an attempt to meet and confer with Plaintiff prior to filing this Motion. Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiff in person or by telephone and file a supplemental declaration attesting to such efforts.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Santa Monica Police Department’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is CONTINUED to APRIL 29, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ROHR CAROL ANN

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BIANCO ERICA