Case Number: 21STCV17747    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

MOVING PARTY:              Defendant Universal City Studios LLC.

OPPOSITION:                      Plaintiff Lakhbir Kaur Dhatt.

REPLY:                                 Defendant Universal City Studios LLC.

Background Allegations

Plaintiff Lakhbir Kaur Datt sues Defendants Universal City Studios LLC—sued as Universal Studios, Inc. and hereafter “Universal City”—Otis Elevator Company (“Otis”), Universal Studios Hollywood (Doe 1), and Does 2 through 50 pursuant to claims of (1) Common Carrier Liability against Universal City and Does, (2) Negligence against Universal City, Otis, and Does, (3) Negligence-Premises Liability against Universal City and Does, and (4) Strict Products Liability, (5) Negligent Products Liability, and (6) Breach of Express and Implied Warranties against Otis and Does. The claims are grounded in allegations that on or about May 19, 2019, plaintiff was lawfully on the premises located at 100 Universal City Plaza, Universal City, CA 91608 and that, as Plaintiff was riding an escalator on the premises that was negligently, carelessly, recklessly, or in some other actionable manner, trained, operated, controlled, entrusted, managed, maintained, repaired, tested, such that the escalator was caused to and did suddenly and without warning malfunction and shake with plaintiff standing on it, causing him to plaintiff down, and proximately causing the resulting injuries and damages to Plaintiff Dhatt.

Universal City’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint—filed June 27, 2022—is now before the Court and challenges the third cause of action on two grounds: the premises liability claim is duplicative of the negligence claim because the claims are both grounded in negligence and because the claims involve the same primary right.

Plaintiff Dhatt opposed the demurrer on September 1, 2022 and Universal City replied thereto on October 7, 2022.

Demurrer: SUSTAINED, Without Leave to Amend.

Legal Standard

A general demurrer for sufficiency may be sustained against duplicative claims. (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290 [“a cause of action for breach of governing documents [that] appear[ed] to be duplicative of [a] cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty” is “recognized … as a basis for sustaining a demurrer”]; Rodrigues v. Campbell Industries (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 494, 501 [finding demurrer was properly sustained without leave to amend as to cause of action that contained allegations of other causes and “thus add[ed] nothing to the complaint by way of fact or theory of recovery”]; see also Award Metals, Inc. v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1128, 1135 [demurrer should have been sustained as to duplicative causes of action].)

Analysis

Universal City challenges the second cause of action in a sufficiency demurrer by arguing that the Premises Liability claim is duplicative of the Negligence claim because the claims are both grounded in negligence and because the claims involve the same primary right. (Demurrer, 4:9-6:8 [duplicative negligence claims], 6:9-25 [primary rights].)

I. Duplicative as to Negligence

For support on the first position—second and third causes of action are duplicative claims grounded in negligence, making the third claim superfluous—Universal City argues that: “[t]he elements of Plaintiff’s premises liability claim are essentially the same as her negligence claim” as grounded in the same allegations “that Universal allegedly failed to maintain the subject escalator on its premises, and that such alleged failure caused and contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries[] ([c]ompare Compl. ¶¶ 19–27 with Compl. ¶¶ 28–36[])” (Demurrer 4:19-5:10); “[b]oth claims also require Plaintiff to provide sufficient facts related to the elements of duty, breach, causation and damages” and the Complaint in fact pleads identical facts toward duty and damages at paragraphs 22, 25 to 27 and 29, 34 to 36 (Demurrer, 5:11-25); and “Plaintiff’s premises liability claim … adds nothing of value or difference to the Complaint” because the Complaint “does not provide any specific facts to demonstrate the manner in which the premises liability claim differs from Plaintiff’s negligence claim,” with both claims alleging “an … unspecified malfunction with the subject escalator allegedly caused Plaintiff to fall” (Demurrer, 5:26-6:2).

In opposition, Plaintiff Dhatt argues, in relevant part, that: “[n]egligence and premises liability are two separate and distinct causes of actions that cannot be considered duplicative nor superfluous” because “[g]eneral negligence focuses on the non-delegable duties landowners and landlords have on their land,” which “differs significantly from [p]remises liability[,] which specifically focuses on specific situations where the owner has a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of the premises to avoid exposing individuals to an unreasonable risk,” for which reason “it cannot logically … that ‘Plaintiff’s premises liability claim is subject to demurrer because it is wholly duplicative of Plaintiff’s negligence claim.’” (Opp’n, 6:2-8 [quoting Demurrer, 2:7-8]; see Opp’n, 2:22-6:16 generally); and “[a]ssuming arguendo the causes of action are duplicative, Defendant’s argument goes against the well-established rule of pleading rule that alternative or even inconsistent legal theories are permissible in a complaint” (Opp’n, 6:17-23.)

In reply, Universal City argues that: “Plaintiff’s negligence and premises liability claims are factually identical—both claims assert that Universal allegedly failed to maintain the subject escalator on its premises, and that such alleged failure caused and contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries” (Reply, 3:8); “[w]hile the [o]pposition tries to draw a distinction between the factual allegations associated with the duty element for both claims, this assertion is contradicted by the Complaint[] (Compare Compl. ¶[] 22 with Compl. ¶ 29[])” (Reply, 3:11-14); [s]imilarly, the factual allegations associated with the causation are virtually the same because the Complaint notes that an alleged, unspecified malfunction with the subject escalator allegedly caused Plaintiff to fall[] (Compare Compl. ¶ 24 with Compl. ¶ 31[])” (Reply, 3:14-16); and “Plaintiff[‘s] … attempt to distinguish these two claims” “is unconvincing because both causes of action rely on the same theory of liability (i.e., negligence)” (Reply, 3:17-24).

The Court agrees with Universal City.

In Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth, supra, the court of appeal found that “the cause of action [therein pleaded] for breach of governing documents appear[ed] to be duplicative of the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty,” supporting a finding that “the trial court properly sustained [a] demurrer” to the breach of governing documents claim, particularly where “[t]he [the pleading party] d[id] not address [the demurring party’s] argument or explain how its document claim differ[ed] from the fiduciary breach claim.” (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 290.)

A review of Parth also shows that “[t]he cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty alleged that [the demurring party] had breached her duties to comply with the governing documents and to avoid causing harm to the [pleading party] by, among other things, refusing to submit bids or contracts to the Board, ‘unilaterally terminating’ PPM, and signing the contract with Desert Protection” and that “[t]he breach of governing documents cause of action identified CC&R and bylaw provisions and identified actions taken by [the demurring party] in breach of these provisions, including the termination of PPM and entering into the Desert Protection contract.” (Id. at p. 277.)

Consistent with Parth’s guidance, the Court reaches the same conclusion: the third cause of action for Negligence-Premises Liability is duplicative of the second cause of action for Negligence. Indeed, like in Parth, both claims are premised on the same violations of duty: a “duty to exercise reasonable care for the health and safety of persons on the [subject elevator] including, but not limited to, supervising and maintaining said premises and providing adequate and safe escalators, personnel and/or facilities on said premises to protect persons legally on said premises, including plaintiff”; breach thereof by “negligently and/or recklessly instructing, entrusting, hiring, supervising and/or controlling their co-defendants, employees, subcontractors, and/or agents, who negligently and/or recklessly owned, operated, managed, supervised, maintained, and/or otherwise provided inadequate escalators at the premises”; and through such actions, allowing the “escalator [to] malfunction[] causing plaintiff to fall down the [subject escalator,] proximately inflicting serious, severe, and permanent injuries to said plaintiff’s person.” (Compare Complaint, ¶¶ 22-24 [quoted language], with ¶¶ 29, 31 [essentially identical language].)

Though the Complaint adds to the third cause of action allegations that Defendants “failed to warn plaintiff of said dangerous, defective and/or unsafe condition on said premises although said defendants, and each of them, knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of said dangerous condition” (Complaint, ¶ 32), the factual grounds for pleading premises liability and negligence in the Complaint are the same. (Compare Complaint, ¶¶ 22-24, with ¶¶ 29, 31.)

The Court recognizes that negligence and premises liability claims are partly based on different elements that must be established to show the violation alleged. (See Opp’n, 6:2-8.)  However, the jury instructions are virtually identical, save for the addition of the element that the defendant owned/leased/occupied/or controlled the land.  (Compare CACI Jury Instruction 400 with 1000.) In Parth, the claims for breach of governing documents and breach of fiduciary duty also involved somewhat different elements, and the breach of governing documents claim still nevertheless failed where the injury to the pleading party in that claim was based on the same facts alleged in the breach of fiduciary duty claim. (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 277.)

Last, though a pleading may state alternative or even inconsistent legal theories (Rader Co. v. Stone (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 10, 29; see Opp’n, 8:2-15), where one of those legal theories “adds nothing to the complaint by way of fact or theory of recovery,” a demurrer may properly be sustained, without leave to amend, as to that claim. (Rodrigues v. Campbell Industries, supra, 87 Cal.App.3d at p. 501.)

Universal City’s demurrer to the third cause of action is thus SUSTAINED, Without Leave to Amend.

II. Primary Rights

Based on the foregoing discussion, the Court need not reach the primary rights arguments advanced in the Demurrer. (Demurrer, 6:9-25; see Opp’n, 6:26-7:27; Reply, 4:1-5:4)

Conclusion

Defendant Universal City Studios LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED, Without Leave to Amend, as to the Complaint’s third cause of action for Negligence-Premises Liability.

Plaintiff is granted 14 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND the Complaint to state either the negligence or premises liability claim, but not both, consistent with the Court’s discussion ante.