Case Number: BC525007 Hearing Date: June 09, 2014 Dept: 93

Defendant County of Los Angeles’ (“the County”) unopposed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. The County’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code § 452-453.
Legal Standard
The objection that a complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is normally raised at an early stage in the proceedings by a general demurrer. However, a general demurrer is not the only procedural device available for this purpose, and it is possible to raise the objection more than once by different methods. The most common alternative method is a motion at the trial, or prior to trial, for judgment on the pleadings. 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.
Timeline of Events
• October 12, 2011: Plaintiff’s trip and fall
• December 20, 2011: Plaintiff filed a claim with the County
• February 3, 2012: Plaintiff’s claim was rejected by the County
• February 1, 2013: Plaintiff files a second claim with the County
• October 17, 2013: instant action filed

Discussion
The County argues that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the government claims statutes for proper presentation of a claim; this is required to be set forth in her Complaint. Although the Complaint alleges compliance with the government claims statutes at paragraph 9a, the County seeks to contradict this allegation with evidence of the government claims filed by Plaintiff. The Court may take judicial notice of the claims filed by Plaintiff, as well as the County’s denial, pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code §§ 452 and 453. See, e.g., Fall River Joint Unified School District v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 431, 434.
Cal. Govt Code § 945.6 states in relevant part:
(a) Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6 and subject to subdivision (b), any suit brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division must be commenced:

(1) If written notice is given in accordance with Section 913, not later than six months after the date such notice is personally delivered or deposited in the mail.

(2) If written notice is not given in accordance with Section 913, within two years from the accrual of the cause of action. If the period within which the public entity is required to act is extended pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 912.4, the period of such extension is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action under this paragraph.

Based on the timeline of events, Plaintiff failed to file her action within six months after her first claim was rejected by the County or two years after the accrual of her cause of action. Plaintiff’s first government claim was denied on February 3, 2012, so the deadline to file the action based on that denial was in early August 2012.
Plaintiff’s second claim to the government was untimely made on February 1, 2013, because it was filed more than six months after the accrual of her cause of action. See Cal. Gov. Code § 911.2 (Petitioner must have presented to the public entity a claim relating to a cause of action for injury to person or to personal property no later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action). The second claim clearly relates back to the first claim because they are both based on the same incident that occurred on October 12, 2011. Motion RJN, Exhs. A and C. The filing of the second claim, therefore, did not give Plaintiff additional time to file her action; the deadline to file remained six months after her first claim was rejected. See Sofranek v. Merced County (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247.
Even if the second claim did reset the clock on the six-month deadline, Plaintiff’s action would still be untimely pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code § 945.6(a)(2), which requires the action to be filed within two years of the accrual of the cause of action. Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on October 12, 2011, so the outer deadline for Plaintiff’s action to have been filed was October 12, 2013. Plaintiff’s action, therefore, was untimely filed on October 17, 2013.

Conclusion
Based on these facts, which contradict Plaintiff’s allegation of compliance with the government claims requirement, the County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.