VARINA CARVAJAL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******2716 Hearing Date: August 31, 2022 Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education and Los Angeles Unified School District

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Varina Carvajal

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Varina Carvajal (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education and Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendants”) on April 2, 2021. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges seven causes of action against Defendants for (1) negligence; (2) breach of mandatory duty; (3) fraudulent concealment / failure to disclose; (4) assault and battery; (5) false imprisonment; (6) violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983; and (7) violation of civil rights (Monnell claim).

Defendants now move the court for an order granting their motion for judgment on the pleadings as to each cause of action asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court grants Defendants’ request for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, 452, subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

The court grants Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s first, second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action because they do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).)

Before bringing a suit for money or damages against a public entity, a claim must be presented no later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. (Gov. Code, 905, 911.2, subd. (a), 945.4.) A claimant may seek relief from this requirement by making a written application to the public entity for leave to present that claim. (Gov. Code, 911.4, subd. (a).) If an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to have been denied, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from the claim presentation requirement. (Gov. Code, 946.6, subd. (a).) Plaintiff alleges that she was injured on May 8, 2019. (Compl., 3, 20.) However, Plaintiff did not present a claim to Defendants until May 7, 2020. (Compl., 6.) Although Plaintiff alleges that she was granted relief from the claim presentation requirement by court order on March 3, 2021, the judicially noticed documents establish that (1) on April 29, 2021, the Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ of mandate and stay order directing the trial court to vacate the March 3, 2021 order granting Plaintiff’s petition for relief, and (2) on May 6, 2021, the trial court vacated its March 3, 2021 order, and issued a new order denying Plaintiff’s Petition Relieving Petitioner from Provision of Government Code Section 945.4. (RJN Ex. 2, p. 2; RJN Ex. 3, p. 1.)

“Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement, but is a condition precedent to the claimant’s ability to maintain an action against the public entity.” (J.J. v. County of San Diego (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1219 [internal quotations omitted].) “The failure to timely present a claim to the public entity bars the claimant from filing a lawsuit against that public entity.” (Ibid. [internal quotations omitted].) Based on the allegations of the Complaint and the judicially noticed court records, the court finds that Plaintiff did not timely present her claims for money or damages for her first, second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action against Defendants. The court therefore grants Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s first through fifth causes of action because they do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants since Plaintiff failed to comply with the timely claim presentation requirements and, thus, is barred from maintaining these causes of action against Defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii); Gov. Code, 945.4.)

The court grants Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s sixth and seventh causes of action under federal law because they do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants since Defendants—school districts—are immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 as an arm of the state. (Code Civ. Proc., 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii); Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinor Unified School Dist. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1100 [California school districts enjoy the state’s immunity from liability under section 1983]; Okorie v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 574, 598 [plaintiffs conceded that their section 1983 claim was flawed “because it was brought against [Los Angeles Unified School District] only, which is immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the federal Constitution”]; Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police (1989) 491 U.S. 58, 70 [Monell was limited to local government units which are not considered part of the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes].)

In her opposition, Plaintiff asserts that individual state actors and other potential Doe defendants are not immune from suit under a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim and, therefore, “there is no basis to dismiss Ms. Carvajal’s civil rights claims against any of the currently unidentified Doe Defendants.” (Opposition, p. 4:17-20.) The court therefore does not order dismissal of Plaintiff’s civil rights claims under section 1983 against the Doe defendants at this time.

ORDER

The court grants defendants Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education and Los Angeles Unified School District’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to each of the seven causes of action alleged in plaintiff Varina Carvajal’s Complaint without leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).)

The court orders defendants Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education and Los Angeles Unified School District to serve and lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal within 10 days from the date of this order.

The court orders defendants Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education and Los Angeles Unified School District to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2022

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court