Hen

MEMORANDUM **

In this appeal from the district court’s grant of Appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, Appellants invoke several exceptions to the doctrine of public entity immunity and claim that the City of Los Angeles (“the City”) is liable under California law. Appellants challenge also the district court’s denial of their motion to reconsider, and its decision to dismiss their claims against Hedayet’s estate for failure to prosecute. We affirm the district court.

I

A.

Appellants argue that the failure to provide adequate security measures amounts to a “dangerous condition” under Cal. Gov.Code § 835. However, “[California] courts have consistently refused to characterize harmful conduct on the part of a third party as a dangerous condition in the absence of some concurrent contributing defect in the property itself.” Moncur v. City of Los Angeles, 68 Cal.App.3d 118, 123 , 137 Cal.Rptr. 239 (1977) (citation omitted); see Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1135 , 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 709 , 45 P.3d 1171 (2002) (“We emphasize, however, that liability is imposed [under § 835] only when there is some defect in the property itself and a causal connection is…