Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 24PSCV01306, Date: 2025-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV01306, Date: 2025-03-19 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

DEMURRER BY CITY OF INDUSTRY TO COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR EXPRESS INDEMNITY, BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL DUTY TO DEFEND, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident that happened in April 2023 at the intersection of South Hacienda Boulevard and Valley Boulevard in the City of Industry. (Complaint ¶9.) Plaintiff KEVIN ROBERTO IZQUIERDO alleges the following against Defendants OSCAR DAVID RODAS VASQUEZ (“Vasquez”) and GOLDEN STATE FREIGHTLINES INC. (“Freightlines Inc.”) (collectively, “Freightlines Defendants”); CITY OF INDUSTRY (“City”); COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (“County”); STATE OF CALIFORNIA (“State”): Plaintiff was struck by a freightliner truck carrying a trailer operated by Vasquez; the light in Plaintiff’s direction of travel phased to green before the left turn light in the opposite direction of travel phased to red. (¶21.) In addition to the conflicting light signals, improperly timed light signals, and an improper light sequence, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges, inter alia, the following other dangerous conditions: An unapproved design plan; changed conditions since the initial design, including the installation of marked crosswalks, increased traffic speeds, increased traffic and pedestrian counts, installation of confusing and conflicting traffic control signs, a heavily congested roadway with both speeding motor vehicles and pedestrian traffic, sightline obscurements, optical illusions, and confusing, contradictory, and unapproved devices signage, and warnings. (Complaint ¶20.)

On April 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants asserting the following causes of action (COAs):

On July 25, 2024, the City filed a cross-complaint (CC) against Freightlines Defendants and the County for the following COAs:

On September 12, 2024, Freightlines Defendants filed their answer to the City’s CC.

On September 19, 2024, the County filed its answer to the City’s CC. That same day, the County filed a CC against Freightlines Defendants and the City for:

On October 21, 2024, Freightlines Defendants filed their answer to the County’s CC.

The County’s CC, in short, alleges the following against the City: Under the Traffic Signal Maintenance Agreement (TSMA)[3] and Assumption of Liability Agreement (ALA),[4] for claims of dangerous condition of public property against City, the City agreed to “assume liability and defend and hold County harmless from loss, costs or expenses caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of City officers, agents and employees occurring in the performance of agreements between the parties (CC ¶19) and that the damages/expenses alleged to have been “sustained by Plaintiff in the Complaint were incurred or are alleged to have been incurred as a result of the negligence or wrongful acts or omissions of City in the performance of the Assumption of Liability Agreement (ALA) and/or in failing to provide the services in accordance with the ALA” (CC ¶21, emphasis added), and/or, upon the “City of Industry[‘s] negligent role in maintaining the roadway, traffic speed limits, and/or traffic signs, which are owned, maintained, and controlled by City of Industry, not County.” (CC ¶29, emphasis added.) (The TSMA is attached as Exhibit C to the CC and the ALA is attached as Exhibit D to the CC.)

In its demurrer, the City argues there is no duty to indemnify the County because that duty “is only limited to negligence arising in the performance of the TSMA. Since the County is only seeking indemnity for Plaintiff’s claims of Industry’s negligence arising out of conditions unrelated to the maintenance of traffic signals, such allegations do not trigger the indemnity agreement. [The City] owes the County no duty of defense or indemnity against any allegations not related to traffic signal maintenance.” (Reply p. 3:11-14.) In Opposition, the County concedes that it does not have an express indemnity claim against the City for Plaintiff’s claims that implicate the maintenance of Industry’s traffic signals. (Opp. at 5:12-14 [“If this was a situation where the Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the dangerous condition was solely the result of maintenance (as outlined in the TSMA exception), then the County might not be able to claim express indemnity.”]; see also Opp. p. 3:21-23 [“[T]he County is primarily responsible for liabilities arising from its negligence in performing maintenance or services for traffic signals….”].) Instead, the County argues that the “City is responsible for liabilities due to its negligence or dangerous conditions on its property.” (Opp. p. 3:22-23.)

Here, the court cannot reach the merits of the demurrer; the court requests that the County file an amended CC to more clearly allege what facts and provisions of what agreements/agreements the County is basing the City of Industry’s purported indemnity obligations. (Opp. p. 6:3-10 [seeking leave to amend to provide a more detailed pleading].)

^{^[1]} The COAs appear to be misnumbered in the body of the CC (e.g., 4th COA for Breach for Contractual Duty to Defendant is listed as the 3rd COA).

^{^[2]} According to the IDC filed by Plaintiff on 1/17/25, the discovery dispute is between Plaintiff and the County. On 8/30/24, Plaintiff propounded FROGs, RFPs, and SROGs upon the County, but, despite multiple extensions, to date, the County continues to respond with boilerplate objections. According to the IDC, this discovery is critical as the City has identified the County as the entity responsible for the programming and maintenance of the lights at the intersection that is the subject of Plaintiff’s lawsuit.

[3] The TSMA, which was entered in December 1981, provides, in relevant part, the following: 1. County will perform, at a level of service equal to that which County performs for County-owned traffic signals, routine traffic signal, illuminated street name sign and highway safety lighting maintenance, hereinafter referred to as "routine maintenance", and extraordinary traffic signal, illuminated street name sign and highway safety lighting maintenance, hereinafter referred to as "extraordinary maintenance", at locations shown in Appendix "A" and "C"....10. The provisions of Paragraph 2 of the "Assumption of Liability Agreement" heretofore entered into between the parties hereto referring to the exception to City's agreement to assume liability and hold County harmless, are expressly made applicable to this Agreement only in the following situation: (a) With reference only to those locations shown in ; Appendixes "A" and “C" for routine maintenance and for extraordinary maintenance at those locations where the estimated cost is under $500, and for extraordinary maintenance at those locations where the estimated cost is over $500 and the cost approved by the City as designated in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. Except as herein indicated, the provisions of said Paragraph 2 shall remain in full force and effect.

[4] The ALA, which was entered into between the City and County on 11/14/1977, provides the relevant provisions (emphasis and capitalization added): (a) City and County have heretofore contracted for the performance of services by County, its officers, agents and employees, and will in the future extend, renew and amend such contracts, and enter into other and further contracts for the performance of services;^{^[4]} and (b) Such contracts are agreements defined under §895 of the Government Code,·and pursuant to §895.2 thereof joint and several liability is imposed on the parties; and (c) Pursuant to §895.4 of the Government Code the parties as a part of the aforementioned agreements may provide for contribution or indemnification upon any liability arising out of the performance of the agreement; and (d) The County is willing to assume liability and defend and hold the City harmless from any loss, cost or expense caused by the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of County officers, its agents and employees, occurring in the performance of said agreement; and (e) The City is willing to assume liability and ·defend and hold the County harmless ·from loss, cost or expenses caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of city officers, agents or employees occurring in the performance of agreements between· the parties except, as hereinafter , provided, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The County will assume liability and defend and , . . hold the City harmless· from loss, costs or expenses caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of County officers, agents and employees occurring in the performance of agreements between the parties hereto to the extent that such liability is imposed on the City by the provisions of §895.2 of the Government Code of the State of California.^{^[4]} 2. The City will assume liability and defend and hold the County harmless from loss, costs or expenses caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of City officers, agents and employees occurring in the performance of agreements between the parties hereto to the extent that such liability is imposed on the County by the provisions of §895.2 of the Government Code of the State of California. In addition, WHEN LIABILITY ARISES pursuant to §§830, et seq., of the Government Code, by reason of a DANGEROUS CONDITION of public property of the city, the City shall assume liability and defend and hold the County harmless from loss, costs or expenses caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of City officers, agents and employees, whether arising in the performance of an agreement between the parties hereto, with the exception that the County shall assume liability and defend and hold the City harmless from loss, costs or expenses caused by the negligent-or wrongful act, or omission of County officers, agents and employees, occurring in the performance of any agreement between the parties hereto where a duty is imposed on the County pursuant to such agreement to provide maintenance or inspection services pertaining to said property·…9. This agreement shall apply to and shall be deemed to be a part of all agreements now existing or hereafter entered into, including amendments, renewals, or other extensions thereof wherein the City and County have contracted under circumstances wherein the liability of the City and County is joint and several under §895.2 of the Government Code of the State of California….