Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV09162, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09162    Hearing Date: January 12, 2024    Dept: 74

International West, LLC v. Espinal Trucking, LLC

Defendant Espinal Trucking, LLC’s Demurrer

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a collision between a truck a five-car garage.

            On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff International West, LLC filed a second amended complaint (SAC) against Defendant Espinal Trucking, LLC (Defendant). The SAC alleges the following causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of employees, (3) negligence per se, (4) trespass, and (5) private nuisance.

            On August 14, 2023, Defendant filed this demurrer.

LEGAL STANDARD         

            A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (¿¿Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318¿¿.) “¿To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.¿” (¿¿C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872¿¿.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (¿Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967¿.) A demurrer “¿does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.¿” (¿¿Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713¿¿.)

            A pleading is uncertain if it is ambiguous or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) A demurrer for uncertainty may lie if the failure to label the parties and claims renders the complaint so confusing defendant cannot tell what he or she is supposed to respond to.  (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.) However, “[a] demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (¿Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616¿.)

DISCUSSION 

Punitive Damages

            In its demurrer, Defendant first argues the SAC fails to state facts sufficient to warrant punitive damages. But a motion to strike, not a demurrer, is the procedure to attack an improper claim for punitive damages. A demurrer challenges only the sufficiency of the causes of action pleaded. (Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1561-1562.)

Fourth Cause of Action – Trespass

            Next, Defendant contends this cause of action duplicates the negligence causes of action and the court should sustain its demurrer on that basis. (See Rodrigues v. Campbell Industries (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 494, 501 [demurrer properly sustained for causes of action that contained allegations of other causes of action and added nothing to the complaint by way of fact or theory of recovery].) The court disagrees. In support of its trespass claim, Plaintiff does not merely rely on Defendant’s supposed negligence. Plaintiff also alleges intentional conduct on the part of Defendant. (SAC, ¶¶ 37-39, 43.) Thus, the court overrules the demurrer for this cause of action.

Fifth Cause of Action – Private Nuisance

            Defendant goes on to argue that this cause of action duplicates the causes of action based on negligence. (El Escorial Owners’ Assn. v. DLC Plastering (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349 [“Where negligence and nuisance causes of action rely on the same facts about lack of due care, the nuisance claim is a negligence claim.”].) The court disagrees. In the SAC, Plaintiff alleges Defendant intentionally failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the truck’s brake system was in proper working order, resulting in the destruction of Plaintiff’s five-car garage. (SAC, ¶ 48.) A trier of fact could interpret this allegation to mean that Defendant intentionally refused to repair the defective brake system to facilitate the truck’s collision with the garage. In addition to lack of due care, then, Plaintiff also alleges intentional conduct to support this cause of action. Thus, the court overrules the demurrer for this cause of action.

CONCLUSION 

            Based on the foregoing, the court overrules Defendant’s demurrer.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a collision between a truck a five-car garage.

            On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff International West, LLC filed a second amended complaint (SAC) against Defendant Espinal Trucking, LLC (Defendant). The SAC alleges the following causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of employees, (3) negligence per se, (4) trespass, and (5) private nuisance.

            On August 14, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to strike portions of the SAC.

LEGAL STANDARD

            A court may strike any “¿irrelevant, false or improper matter¿inserted in any pleading¿” or any part of a pleading “¿not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.¿” (¿Code Civ. Proc., § 436¿.) “¿The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.¿” (¿Code Civ. Proc., § 437¿.)¿           

DISCUSSION 

            In support of its motion to strike, Defendant argues the court should strike the fourth and fifth causes of action because they duplicate Plaintiff’s claims based on negligence. However, the court has found otherwise in its ruling on Defendant’s demurrer. Defendant also contends the court should strike the SAC’s prayer for punitive damages (SAC, p. 12:1-2.) A plaintiff may recover such damages if the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) Malice can mean despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) To justify an award of punitive damages based on the defendant’s conscious disregard of other’s safety, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) Defendant argues in part that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that Defendant acted with malice. The court disagrees. Plaintiff alleges Defendant knew the truck’s brake system was defective yet ordered employees to drive the truck anyway. (SAC, ¶¶ 10, 12.) If true, such conduct exhibits a conscious disregard for the safety of others, which could justify an award of punitive damages.

CONCLUSION 

            Based on the foregoing, the court denies Defendant’s motion to strike.

            Defendant is ordered to give notice.