Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Deebes vs. JD Property Management, Inc.", Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling
Defendant JD Property Management, Inc.’s unopposed Demurrer to plaintiff Souheil Deebes’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint is SUSTAINED.
A demurrer challenges the defects appearing on the face of the pleading or from other matters properly subject to judicial notice. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The issue is the sufficiency of the pleading, not the truth of the facts alleged. Thus, no matter how unlikely or improbable, the allegations made must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corporation v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.) Absent court orders or other items subject to judicial notice, or items attached as exhibits to the complaint, the court may not consider the contents of pleadings or other exhibits when ruling on a demurrer. (Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal.3d 904, 914; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1746, 1749.)
“In our examination of the complaint we are guided by the well settled principles governing the testing of its sufficiency by demurrer: A demurrer admits all material and issuable facts properly pleaded. [Citations omitted.] However, it does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged therein. [Citations omitted.]” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 666, 672.)
Under Section 430.10(e) the test is whether the complaint states any valid claim entitling plaintiff to relief, even if Plaintiff’s cause of action is improperly titled, or an improper remedy is stated. (Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38.)
JD demurs to the second and third causes of action (“COA”) on the basis that there are insufficient facts to support those COA against JD. (Civ. Proc. Code § 430.10(e).)
1) COA No. 1 – Negligence
“The elements of a cause of action for negligence are well established. They are '(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; [and] (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.' ” (Ladd v. Cty. of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917.) “[T]he existence of a duty is a question of law for the court.” (Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Cal. 4th 814, 819.)
“A defendant does not owe a legal duty to protect against third party conduct, unless there exists a special relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. [Citation.] In that circumstance, “[i]n addition to the special relationship ..., there must also be evidence showing facts from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the [defendant] had prior actual knowledge, and thus must have known, of the offender's assaultive propensities. [Citation.]” [Citation.] In short, the third party's misconduct must be foreseeable to the defendant.” (Doe v. Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. (2019) 37 Cal. App. 5th 675, 682–83.)
Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to support this COA. Plaintiff has failed to plead a legal duty or special relationship between JD and Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to support JD’s prior actual knowledge of defendant Richard Thomas Beck’s (“Richard” individually) assaultive propensities, it was foreseeable Richard would assault someone, that JD had the duty or ability to protect Plaintiff from JD, and that anything JD did or did not do was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff has also pled insufficient facts to support defendant Thomas Beck (“Thomas” Individually) being unfit for the job or that JD was aware of any specific unfitness.
The Demurrer is SUSTAINED as to this COA with leave to amend.
2) COA No. 2 – Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Training, and Retention
““An employer may be liable to a third person for the employer's negligence in hiring or retaining an employee who is incompetent or unfit. [Citation.]” [Citation.] Negligence liability will be imposed upon the employer if it “knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes.” (Delfino v. Agilent Techs., Inc. (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 790, 815.) “Liability for negligent supervision and/or retention of an employee is one of direct liability for negligence, not vicarious liability.” (Id.)
This COA essentially has four subparts for different negligence. Negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent training, and negligent retention.
Regarding negligent hiring, Plaintiff has only alleged Thomas was “unfit” for the position, which is an improper conclusion of law. (Daar, supra, 67 Cal.2d at 672.) Plaintiff has not alleged any facts supporting Thomas being unfit, nor that JD was aware of any issues with Thomas prior to hiring Thomas. Again, Thomas was not the individual who attacked Plaintiff, Richard was and Richard was not employed by JD. There are no allegations that Thomas was dangerous or that JD was aware of such propensities. Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to support negligent hiring.
Regarding negligent supervision and retention, Plaintiff again has not alleged any specific issues with Thomas, nor has Plaintiff alleged JD was aware of any issues with Thomas that would require Thomas to be terminated or that Thomas was inadequately supervised. As noted by JD, the relationship between Thomas and Richard is not something that is part of Thomas’s employment duties. Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to support negligent supervision or retention.
Regarding negligent training, Plaintiff alleges Thomas was not trained correctly to perform the work for which he was hired (Complaint ¶ 28) and specifically was not trained for dealing with known dangerous individuals on the premises and was not trained for public safety. (Complaint ¶ 29.) As a result of the lack of training, Thomas permitted Richard, a known dangerous individual, onto the property which was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff has likely pled sufficient facts on the negligent training subpart of this COA, however as the other three subparts are not properly pled, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint within 20-day of written notice of the court’s ruling.
JD to give notice.