Walter John Rason vs Department of Motor Vehicles
Walter John Rason vs Department of Motor Vehicles
Case Number
24CV01138
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 04/28/2025 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motion: Dismiss
Tentative Ruling
Walter John Rason v. Department of Motor Vehicles
Case No. 24CV01138
Hearing Date: April 28, 2025
HEARING: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Walter John Rason: Self Represented/Deceased
For Defendant Department of Motor Vehicles: Rob Bonta, Gary S. Balekjian, Nancy M. Droege, Office of the Attorney General
TENTATIVE RULING:
The motion of defendant Department of Motor Vehicles motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted. The amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Background:
On February 29, 2024, self-represented plaintiff Walter John Rason (Rason) filed a complaint in this action against defendant the Department of Motor Vehicles (the DMV). The complaint appears to allege two causes of action, one for “damages” and the other for “declaratory relief”. (Compl. at p. 1.) The allegations of the complaint are set forth in 3 brief paragraphs in which Rason alleges that he resides in Santa Barbara County, and that the DMV failed to provide Rason with a copy of his failed driver’s safety test pursuant to the “Information Practice Act of 1977” and the “Federal Privacy Act, Public Law 93-578.” (Id. at ¶¶ 1-2.)
Rason attaches as exhibit F to the complaint what he alleges is “documentation pursuant to Federal and State law, before suit, of [Rason’s] efforts to retrieve [his] personal information to delete, opt out, right to non- discrimination, to correct, to limit. the use, and the right to show this information to this Court for declaratory relief and damages according to proof.” (Compl., ¶ 2.) Also attached to the complaint as exhibit G is the DMV’s “final decision on this matter.” (Id. at ¶ 3.) Rason sought monetary damages against the DMV in an amount not less than $2,000,000. (Prayer, ¶ 1.)
DMV demurred to the original complaint and the court sustained the demurrer, with leave to amend, on July 29, 2024. Rason was given until August 9, 2024, to file his first amended complaint (“FAC”).
On August 2, 2024, Rason filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) for declaratory relief pursuant to the Information Practice Act. (FAC, ¶ 2.)
Rason alleges that “the [DMV driver’s safety] test is rigged with (a) ambiguous, (b) unintelligible, and/or (c) uncertain questions with no clear right answer, that connects to the driver’s safety handbook publication of April 2023.” (Ibid.)
On April 21, 2023, Rason took two driver’s safety tests and believes he passed. (FAC, ¶ 4.)
Thereafter, Rason sent correspondence to the DMV, through California State Assembly Member Gregg Hart, listing grievances with the DMV safety test and requesting a copy of his failed test. (FAC, Exh. 1.) By way of a letter dated May 2, 2023, Assemblymember Hart’s office informed Rason that they had reached out to the DMV with Rason’s concerns and shared Rason’s letter with the DMV, and the DMV declined to provide a copy of the test to Rason. (FAC, Exh. 2.)
Rason alleges that the DMV has a responsibility to provide copies of his personal information, including the driver’s safety tests. (FAC, ¶ 7(c).) By way of the FAC, Rason seeks and order that the DMV allow him to inspect copies of his driver’s safety tests. (FAC, Prayer.)
DMV filed a demurrer to the FAC. However, the demurrer was not heard due to the court being informed that Rason passed away and that DMV intended to file the present motion.
On November 12, 2024, Lynn Goebel, of Santa Barbara Legal Aid, notified DMV’s counsel that Rason had passed away on October 27, 2024. (Droege Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. 1.)
DMV now moves to dismiss because there is no longer a viable cause of action. On February 27, 2025, DMV obtained an order to publish the motion in the Santa Barbara Independent at least once a week for four consecutive weeks. DMV filed proof of publication on April 14, 2025.
There is not opposition to the present motion.
Analysis:
“If a complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action defendant may take advantage of such defect by making a motion to dismiss the complaint.” (Monahan v. Blossom (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 951, 952.)
As noted above, there was a demurrer pending when Rason passed away. It would have been granted. The sole remedy, besides costs of suit, that Rason sought, was to obtain copies of this DMV driver’s safety tests.
Civil Code section 1798.40, subdivision (e) exempts the DMV from being required to produce the safety tests as they could “compromise the objectivity or fairness of a competitive examination . . . to determine fitness for licensure . . ..” Further, Government Code section 7929.605, with exceptions not present here, provides: “[T]his division does not require disclosure of test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination . . ..” Thus, the DMV has met its burden of proof of showing that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because there is a complete defense. Based on the facts present here there is no possibility that the FAC is capable of amendment to state a viable cause of action.
Further, although stated in the context of appellate review, the following is relevant in the present situation.
“ ‘A case is moot when the decision of the reviewing court ‘ “can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief.” ’ [Citation.] ‘ “When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed.” ’ [Citations.]’ ” [Citation.]” (Fillmore Center Associates, LP v. Lewis (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 68, 71, fn. 1.)
This case is moot. There is no relief that this court could grant that would provide any party, or any successor in interest, with effectual relief. The test results sought by Rason were personal to him and no other person could benefit in any way by obtaining them.
The motion will be granted, and the case will be dismissed with prejudice.