Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Scott vs. Hoyt, Date: 2022-07-18 Tentative Ruling
Defendants Matthew Hoyt, An Individual And As Trustee Of The M. Hoyt Family Trust (“Hoyt” individually), and David Alvillar’s (“Alvillar” individually; “Defendants” together with Hoyt) Demurrer to plaintiffs Maxwell Scott and Ashley Anne Edwards (“Plaintiffs” together) Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
“We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (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.” (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.) Under a general demurrer, plaintiff’s complaint must fail to state a valid cause of action for the demurrer to be sustained.
Finally, if a demurrer is sustained as to any cause of action or causes of action, it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that plaintiff can state a good cause of action. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) But if a party cannot amend to state a valid cause of action, or the party opposing the demurrer cannot state how a valid cause of action can be pled, which the opposing party has the burden of proof on, then the demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend. (Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723, 742.)
Defendants demur to the sole cause of action of Premises Liability on the basis that it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain. (Civ. Proc. Code § 430.10(e).)
“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.” (Kesner v. Superior Ct. (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 1132, 1158.) “The owner of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.” (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Mgmt. Corp. (1989) 215 Cal. App. 3d 1611, 1619 (“Brooks”).) “A defendant need not own, possess and control property in order to be held liable; control alone is sufficient.” (Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal. 4th 1149, 1162.)
Defendants have made multiple arguments that are not proper for a demurrer as they seek to have the court make determinations of fact and/or law. The only question for the court to determine in this instance, is if Plaintiffs have properly pled sufficient facts to state a cause of action against Defendants.
The court finds Plaintiffs have largely alleged sufficient facts to support each of the elements of the Premises Liability cause of action, however there are a couple of issues with the pleading that Plaintiffs should easily be able to correct with an amendment.
The first issue is the pleading is unclear as to Alvillar. While Plaintiffs have succinctly alleged Hoyt is the owner of the property, Plaintiffs also alleged, “Alvillar, on information and belief, is an individual who purchased liability insurance as an owner of the [Property].” (Complaint ¶ 5.) It is unclear if Plaintiffs allege Alvillar is an owner/co-owner of the property, or if they are alleging he only purchased liability insurance on the property as though he were an owner. If Plaintiffs are alleging Alvillar is an owner/co-owner of the property, then they would have met the elements of duty as to Alvillar. If Plaintiffs are merely alleging Alvillar had liability insurance on the property (for whatever reason), or that Alvillar was the purchaser of liability insurance (say through an insurance broker) for the benefit of owner Hoyt, then Plaintiffs would not have alleged sufficient facts to support the duty element as to Alvillar. The pleading should be amended to clarify this issue.
The second issue is the element of damages. Plaintiffs have properly alleged damages to their personal property due to the water intrusion, but it is unclear what damages Plaintiffs have suffered from being “exposed to unhealthy living conditions.” (Complaint ¶ 21.) For example, did Plaintiffs incur medical expenses, respiratory diseases, etc., from the exposure, or are they alleging something else that is not obvious from the pleading.
Plaintiffs are given leave to file a First Amended Complaint within 20-days of the hearing.
Defendants to give notice.