Case Name: Eddie Ramos v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, et al.

Case No.: 18CV334208

Demurrer of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Factual and Procedural Background

On July 13, 2017, plaintiff Eddie Ramos (“Ramos”) was travelling on defendant Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (“VTA”) bus line #70 when the bus suddenly stopped causing plaintiff Ramos to be thrown from his seat. (Complaint, ¶GN-1.) As a result of the fall, plaintiff Ramos suffered injuries. (Id.)

Plaintiff Ramos submitted a Claim for Damages on August 18, 2017. (Id.) VTA rejected plaintiff Ramos’s Claim for Damages by a Notice of Rejection of Claim dated September 7, 2017. (Id.)

On August 31, 2018, plaintiff Ramos filed a Judicial Council form complaint against defendant VTA asserting causes of action for: (1) General Negligence; and (2) Premises Liability.

On December 21, 2018, defendant VTA filed the instant demurrer to plaintiff Ramos’s complaint.

I. Defendant VTA’s demurrer to plaintiff Ramos’s complaint is SUSTAINED.

A defendant may raise a general demurrer based on statute of limitations grounds. “Where the dates alleged in the complaint show the action is barred by the statute of limitations, a general demurrer lies.” (Weil & Brown et al., CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2018) ¶7:50, p. 7(I)-31 citing Saliter v. Pierce Bros. Mortuaries (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 292, 300, et al.)

Here, defendant VTA demurs on the basis that plaintiff Ramos’s complaint is barred by Government Code section 945.6 which states, in relevant part, “any suit brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented … If written notice is given in accordance with Section 913 [notice of rejection of claim], not later than six months after the date such notice is personally delivered or deposited in the mail.”

Plaintiff Ramos specifically pleads VTA gave notice of rejection of claim on September 7, 2017. Thus, plaintiff Ramos had six months from that date or until approximately March 7, 2018 to bring suit. Plaintiff Ramos did not commence this action until August 31, 2018.

In opposition to the demurrer, plaintiff Ramos cites Ocean Services Corp. v. Ventura Port Dist. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1762, 1778 and Mandjik v. Eden Township Hospital Dist. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1488 for the proposition that the statute of limitations is tolled where the denial of the claim is deficient. The court did not discern such a holding from either of the two decisions cited by plaintiff Ramos nor is there any indication from the complaint that the notice of rejection of claim was otherwise deficient.

Plaintiff Ramos also cites to Government Code section 911.6, subdivision (b)(1) which states, “The board shall grant the application [for leave to present a late claim] where … The failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect and the public entity was not prejudiced in its defense of the claim by the failure to present the claim within the time specified in Section 911.2.” This section applies to one who makes application to the public entity to present a late claim and is not applicable here since plaintiff Ramos has alleged that he timely presented a claim to VTA on August 18, 2017, slightly more than one month following the underlying incident which allegedly occurred on July 13, 2017.

Finally, plaintiff Ramos asks for leave to amend to address any deficiencies. Plaintiff Ramos has the burden to show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) Plaintiff Ramos has not met this burden.

Accordingly, defendant VTA’s demurrer to plaintiff Ramos’s complaint on the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action [Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd. (e)], i.e., the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations, is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.