Judge Brian F. Gasdia, Case Number: 23NWCV02962, Date: 2024-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Brian F. Gasdia, Case: 23NWCV02962, Date: 2024-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02962 Hearing Date: April 3, 2024 Dept: SER

CAROLS HUMBERTO RAMIREZ LEDEZMA v. NICHOLAS JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

CASE NO.: 23NWCV02962

HEARING: 4/3/24 @ 10:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Nicholas Joseph Gutierrez’s demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint is OVERRULED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Background

This is about a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff sues for negligence and Violation of Civil Code section 52.1. Defendant Nicholas Joseph Gutierrez demurs to the Violation of Civil Code section 52.1 cause of action on the grounds that it does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and it is uncertain.

Meet and Confer

The parties satisfied the meet-and-confer requirements. (Decl. Lascola, ¶¶ 4 to 5; Code. Civ. Proc., § 430.41.)

Violation of Civil Code section 52.1

To state a cause of action under section 52.1 there must first be violence or intimidation by threat of violence. (Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Calif., Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 101, 111.) Second, the violence or threatened violence must be due to plaintiff's membership in one of the specified classifications set forth in Civil Code section 51.7 or a group similarly protected by constitution or statute from hate crimes. (Ibid.)

Defendant demurs on the grounds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the threshold to allege a Civil Code section 52.1 violation against Defendant. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff did not allege that he was acting within the scope of his duties as a County of Los Angeles employee because Plaintiff did not allege that he was an employee with the County of Los Angeles. However, as stated above, that is not the law.

Defendant also demurs on the grounds that the cause of action lacks “ordinary and concise language” and that any allegations are innuendo and speculative. “[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Ins. Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848, fn. 3.) Based on its review of the complaint, the Court does not find that the cause of action is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.

Based on the above, the Court OVERRULES the demurrer.