Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
15. Gardner v. Omnitrans, et al, Case No. CIVSB2422411 Defendant Omnitrans Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 6/8/26, 9:00 a.m., S-17 Tentative Ruling
As to the Requests for Judicial Notice: Movant seeks judicial notice of the Claim for Damages, Notice of Insufficiency, Amended Claim for Damages, and Notice of Rejection. (Francia-Gomez Decl., Exhs. A-D.) The Court would GRANT, as these are records relating to official acts and files of a public agency.
As to the Motion: The Court would GRANT this unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings (JOP). The Court will hear argument on whether leave to amend is appropriate.
Case Summary
This is, in essence, a personal injury case. Plaintiff alleges that on November 24, 2023, he was a passenger on a bus operated by Defendant Omnitrans. He alleges that the bus was operated recklessly and that, due to the reckless driving, Plaintiff was jostled and struck within the bus, causing him injuries.
As such, he filed suit on July 17, 2024, with a form complaint. Following a demurrer, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) on September 25, 2025. The FAC alleges (1) statutory liability; (2) vicarious statutory liability; and (3) negligence.
Summary of the Law
A party may bring a motion for judgment on the pleadings after filing an answer and the time to demurrer has expired. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(b)(1) & (f); Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 548.)
If the moving party is the defendant, then a motion for judgment on the pleading (JOP) is limited to the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject of the cause of action or the complaint fails to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(c)(1)(B).)
The grounds for a JOP shall appear on the face of the pleading or from any matter judicially noticed. (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Analysis
The motion is made on the grounds that (1) the FAC is barred by Government Code section 945.6(a)(1) because it was filed more than six months after the Notice of Rejection; (2) The Notice of Rejection from December 14, 2023 complied with Government Code section 913 and triggered a six-month statute of limitations; (3) while the FAC references a subsequent claim from January 11, 2024 [FAC, ¶¶14-17], that claim was not properly presented under Government Code section 915 and is legally ineffective; and (4) Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages fails as a matter of law because Omnitrans is a public entity immune under Government Code section 818.
The arguments are uncontested. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to the granting of the motion. (Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c); also Giles v.