Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 20STCV38474, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 20STCV38474, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

        If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Case Number: 20STCV38474 Hearing Date: May 24, 2023 Dept: 28

Defendant Young Nam Park’s Demurrer

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 7, 2020, Plaintiff Jose Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“City”) for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Young Nam Park (“Park”).

On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed the FAC.

On April 12, 2023, the City filed an answer.

On April 12, 2023, Park filed a Demurrer to be heard on May 24, 2023. On May 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On May 17, 2023, Park filed a reply.

Trial is scheduled for March 4, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Park requests the Court sustain the demurrer.

Plaintiff requests the Court overrule the demurrer.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 430.10 states: “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue; (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) The pleading does not state

facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible; and (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.”

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.) Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Id.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. Premises liability ‘is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises’; accordingly, ‘mere possession with its attendant right to control conditions on the premises is a sufficient basis for the imposition of an affirmative duty to act.’ But the duty arising from possession and control of property is adherence to the same standard of care that applies in negligence cases.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1159.)

A landowner does not have any duty to repair abutting sidewalks along a public street and does not owe any duty to pedestrians injured as a result of a defect in the sidewalks. (Schaefer v. Lenahan (1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 324, 326.) The Sidewalk Accident Decisions Doctrine limits actions against property owners arising from a defect in public sidewalks, except where the property owner created the defect or exercised control over the abutting sidewalk. (Williams v. Foster (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 516-517.) Exceptions may include if the owner alters the sidewalk, damaged the sidewalk or created a special hazard on the sidewalk. Sexton v. Brooks (1952) 39 Cal. 2d 153, 157; Moeller v. Fleming (1982) 136 Cal. App. 3d 241, 245; Lee v. Ashizawa (1964) 60 Cal. 2d 862, 865.

DISCUSSION

Judicial Notice

The Court will not take judicial notice of the requested documents. Screen captures from websites are not a proper subject for judicial notice. Even if the Court did take judicial notice of the websites or search results, judicial notice does not extend to the truth of the facts asserted on said websites; there must be a separate request made for the facts. At most, the Court would judicially notice the existence of these websites, but not the facts provided. The mere existence of these screenshots is irrelevant to this litigation.

Demurrer

Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff tripped on an unscrewed plate of a sidewalk ramp on the intersection of Kenmore and 8th Street. Plaintiff alleges that the City controlled, maintained and managed the subject intersection, and that Park “also” controlled, maintained and managed the subject property.

Park alleges that Plaintiff cannot bring either cause of action as Park has no duty to Plaintiff under the Sidewalk Accidents Decisions Doctrine. The Sidewalk Accidents Decisions Doctrine (“SAAD”) limits adjacent property owners from being held liable unless they cause the defect or exercised control over the subject sidewalk. The Court finds that the SAAD is inapplicable to the subject complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint does not claim that Park owned and controlled any adjacent property as a basis for liability; Plaintiff’s complaint simply states that Park was responsible for the subject sidewalk. SAAD may still be applicable at the summary judgment or trial stage; it is just not appropriate given the alleged facts currently.

When reading a complaint, the Court assumes the truth of the facts asserted. Here, Plaintiff has asserted that Park controlled the sidewalk, and that the sidewalk was defective due to an unscrewed ramp plate. This establishes duty and breach of duty. Plaintiff asserts that he fell due to the dangerous condition, resulting in injuries. This establishes causation and damages. Plaintiff has met all the required elements to plead a cause of action for negligence and premises liability. The Court overrules the demurrer.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Young Nam Park’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.