This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/29/2020 at 14:36:05 (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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2094

  • Filing Date:

    09/24/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SAINT-VICTOR OLIVIER

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Defendant

SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorneys

ROHR CAROL ANN

BIANCO ERICA

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice Continuance of Hearing

8/27/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Continuance of Hearing

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

8/18/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

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

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

2/6/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

2/19/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings)

3/9/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on 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)

37 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/20/2021
  • Hearing04/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2021
  • Hearing01/12/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Individual; Filed by: Olivier Saint-Victor (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketNotice of Continuance of Jury Trial; Filed by: Santa Monica Police Department (Defendant); As to: Olivier Saint-Victor (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketNotice Continuance of Hearing; Filed by: Olivier Saint-Victor (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by: Santa Monica Police Department (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by: Santa Monica Police Department (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 01/12/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Event scheduled for 12/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Type changed from Non-Jury Trial to Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
58 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
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Olivier Saint-Victor (Plaintiff); As to: Santa Monica Police Department (Defendant)

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

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

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

    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: 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.