Michelle Tejeda v. Alfonzo Perez Special Educational Center, et al.

|

| | | Hearing Date: | August 31, 2026 | | | Time: | 10:00 a.m. | | | [Tentative] Order RE: Demurrer to Complaint | MOVING PARTY: Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Michelle Tejeda, by and through her Guardian ad Litem Aracely Polanco Salguero Demurrer to Complaint The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this demurrer. DISCUSSION Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District ("Defendant") demurs to the complaint filed by plaintiff Michelle Tejeda, by and through her Guardian ad Litem Aracely Polanco Salguero ("Plaintiff") in its entirety.

The court sustains the demurrer to the Complaint in its entirety as time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.10, subd. (e).) Claims for personal injury and property damage against a public entity must ordinarily be presented to that entity within six months of accrual of the claim. (Gov. Code, Sec. 905.) All other claims must be presented within a year. (Id.) When a claim that must be presented is rejected, by action or inaction, by the public entity and the entity fails to give written notice, the claim is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. (Gov.

Code, Sec. 945.6, subd. (a)(2).)

Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence, failure to discharge a mandatory duty, and violation of the Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act stemming from injuries sustained in a fall on May 4, 2022. (Complaint P. 8.) Plaintiff presented her claim to Defendant on May 25, 2022. (Complaint P. 12.) Plaintiff received no formal rejection of the Complaint. (Complaint P. 13.) By operation of law, Plaintiff's complaint is subject to a two-year statute of limitations, which placed the deadline to file this action on May 4, 2024.

The Complaint was not filed until May 28, 2024, twenty-four days past the deadline. The court does not find that the equitable tolling doctrine applies because nothing within the four corners of the Complaint nor judicially noticeable material establishes reasonable and good faith conduct on Plaintiff's part. (Addison v. State (1978) 21 Cal.3d 313, 319 [elements for application of equitable tolling doctrine].) Plaintiff's assertion that the late filing of the Complaint was the result of "an administrative error" is extrinsic to the pleadings and insufficient to demonstrate reasonable and good-faith conduct. (Opposition p. 8:23.)

The burden is on the plaintiff "to articulate how it could amend its pleading to render it sufficient." ¿ (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth ¿ (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.) ¿ To satisfy that burden, a plaintiff " must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading. " ¿ (Goodman v. Kennedy ¿ (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) ¿ The court finds that Plaintiff has not articulated the facts that could be alleged to demonstrate that the Complaint falls within the statute of limitations or that the statute of limitations should be tolled and therefore sustains the demurrer without leave to amend.

ORDER The court SUSTAINS defendant Los Angeles Unified School District's demurrer to the complaint filed by plaintiff Michelle Tejeda, by and through her Guardian ad Litem Aracely Polanco Salguero without leave to amend. The court orders that defendant Los Angeles Unified School District is dismissed from this action. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 581, subd. (m).) The court orders defendant Los Angeles Unified School District to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 31, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B.

Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court Case Number: 24STCV13581 Hearing Date: August 31, 2026 Dept: 513 Superior Court of California County