Case Number: BC637731 Hearing Date: October 30, 2018 Dept: 2

Defendant Miriam Ramos’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

On October 20, 2016, Plaintiff Patricia La Plante (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant suit against the County of Los Angeles (“the County”), Miriam Ramos (“Ramos” or “Defendant”), and Jane Doe Westbury (“Westbury”) (collectively “Defendants”), alleging a single cause of action for premises liability. On September 19, 2018, Ramos filed a demurrer to the complaint. Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 24, 2018. However, Plaintiff’s opposition was due on October 17, 2018. This late-filing gave Defendant no opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s opposition. The Court will thus disregard this opposition. (CRC Rule 3.1300(d).)

Demurrer: Government Claims Act

Under the Government Claims Act, the general rule is that any party with a claim for money or damages against a public entity must first file claim directly with that entity; only if that claim is denied or rejected may the claimant file a lawsuit. (Gov. Code §§ 905, 945.4; City of Ontario v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 894.) This provides the public entity with an opportunity to evaluate the claim and decide as to whether it will pay on the claim. (Roberts v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 474.) A plaintiff must comply with the claim presentation requirements even if the entity has actual knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the claim. (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 455.) Failure to allege facts in the complaint demonstrating compliance with the pre-litigation governmental claims presentation requirements subjects the complaint to a general demurrer. (State of Calif. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239; see also V.C. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 499, 509 [affirming trial court decision to sustain demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that V.C.’s failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Tort Claims Act barred her action].)

The claim presentation requirement may be generally alleged. (Esparza v. Kaweah Delta District Hospital (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 547, 554; see Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1237.) Esparza centered on the use of the Judicial Council form, where a plaintiff checked a box off indicating she was required to comply with the claims statute, and that she complied. (Esparza, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at 551.) The Appeal Court held that the plaintiff’s allegation that she “ ‘complied with applicable claims statutes’ is reasonably interpreted as meaning the claim was timely” and that “the ultimate fact of compliance with the claims presentation requirement in the Government Claims Act can be pled using a general allegation.” (Id., at 554-555, fn. 4.)

Here, Plaintiff generally alleges compliance with the Government Claims Act. (Compl. ¶ 9.) This is sufficient for pleading purposes. (Esparza, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at 554.) Defendant failed to provide any judicially noticeable facts that controvert this allegation. As such, the Court must take this allegation as true. Defendant’s demurrer on this ground is OVERRULED.

Demurrer: Premises Liability

Premises liability is a form of negligence where a plaintiff must show the well-known elements of negligence: 1) defendant owed a duty based on his ownership or control of property; 2) defendant was negligent in the use, maintenance or management of the property; 3) the plaintiff was harmed; and 4) defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619.) The property owner’s duty is to use due care and to act affirmatively so that his or her property does not create an unreasonable risk of harm to others. (Ericson v. Federal Express Corp. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1291.)

Defendant demurs to this cause of action on the grounds that the only fact alleged against her is that she was the director of Archives and was aware of and authorized the doorstop. (Compl. ¶ Prem.L-2.) However, the cause of action also alleges that Ramos “owned, maintained, managed, and operated the premises…” (Compl. ¶ Prem.L-2.) Defendant provides no other authority that she could not be held liable in the context of a Gov. Code section 835 claim, or on general negligence principles, considering these allegations. Further, Defendant’s referenced extrinsic facts cannot be considered. Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.