Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 24STCV27545, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV27545    Hearing Date: March 25, 2025    Dept: 76

The following tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at 2:25 PM on March 24, 2025. 

Notice of intent to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1).  The Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. 

As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(1), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 by 4:00 p.m. on March 24, 2025.

Notice to Department 76 should be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org, with opposing parties copied on the email.  The high volume of telephone calls to Department 76 may delay the Court’s receipt of notice, so telephonic notice to 213-830-0776 should be reserved for situations where parties are unable to give notice by email.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, the Court may not entertain oral argument if notice of intention to appear is not given.

            This is an insurance subrogation action whereby Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently caused property damage to the condominium unit of Plaintiff’s insured.

Defendant Joung Sook Ahn demurs to the First Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Joung Sook Ahn’s demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED. Defendant is ordered to answer the First Amended Complaint within 10 days.

ANALYSIS

Demurrer

Meet and Confer

            The Declaration of Edward W. Suh reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to meet and confer efforts. This satisfies Civ. Proc. Code, § 430.41(a)(3)(B).

Discussion

Defendant Joung Sook Ahn demurs to the First Amended Complaint as follows:

1.         First Cause of Action (Negligence).

            Defendant argues that the first cause of action is uncertain, and Defendant cannot ascertain the factual and legal basis for her alleged liability.

            A demurrer for uncertainty is properly sustained where the complaint is so vague or uncertain that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., when the defendant cannot determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts are directed against the defendant. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, ¶ 7:85.)  Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and strictly construed “because ambiguities can reasonably be clarified under modern rules of discovery.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

Ordinarily, negligence may be alleged in general terms, without specific facts showing how the injury occurred, but there are “limits to the generality with which a plaintiff is permitted to state his cause of action, and … the plaintiff must indicate the acts or omissions which are said to have been negligently performed. He may not recover upon the bare statement that the defendant's negligence has caused him injury.” (Citations omitted.)

(Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 527.)

            Here, the allegations at Page 4 of the form Complaint include that: “Defendant  breached  this  duty [as the owner of a neighboring condominium unit] and allowed  water [from] the fire sprinkler system to intrude into the insured’s condominium causing  damage.”

Where alleged negligence has caused personal [*588]  injury or property damage and economic loss, the existence of a duty of care is the rule, not the exception. (Citations omitted.) And under these circumstances, where a duty of care is presumed, courts consider the Cabral/Rowland factors to determine whether “an exception to the general duty rule in Civil Code section 1714” should be found. (Citations omitted.)

Where the alleged negligence has caused economic loss, but no personal injury or property damage, duty is not presumed. Rather, courts examine the Biakanja factors to determine whether to impose on the defendant “an exceptional duty to third parties.” (Citation omitted.)

(S. Cal. Gas Leak Cases (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 581, 587-88.)

            Here, sufficient are facts are pled whereby the theory of liability against demurring Defendant is negligent maintenance of the first sprinklers on her property, and a duty owned not to permit anything escaping from her property to cause damage to neighboring property. The negligence cause of action is sufficiently pled, and the parties may ascertain further details through discovery. 

The demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED. Defendant is ordered to answer the First Amended Complaint within 10 days.