Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV30679, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV30679    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Rembert Montald’s Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint without Motion to Strike.

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff Cathy Lockhart (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Eric Johnson (“Johnson”) and Uber Technologies (“Uber”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Rembert Montald (“Montald”).

On November 15, 2019, Uber filed an answer. On April 3, 2020, Johnson filed an answer.

On February 23, 2022, Johnson filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Montald for total equitable indemnity, contribution based upon comparative fault, declaratory relief and negligence.

On August 19, 2022, Montald filed a Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint to be heard on September 21, 2022. On September 8, 2022, Johnson filed an opposition. On September 14, 2022, Montald filed an opposition.

Trial is scheduled for March 9, 2023. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Montald requests the Court sustain the demurrer on the basis that there are insufficient facts to support the articulated causes of action.

Johnson requests the Court overrule the demurrer.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 430.10 states: “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue; (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible; and (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.”

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.)  When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.  (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.)  In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (CCP § 430.30(a).)  A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)  Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.  (Id.)  The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.  (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

CCP §335.1 states that there is a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, beginning from the date of the incident. The filing of the Complaint suspends the statute during the pendency of the action, and the defendant may set up his [cross] claim by appropriate pleading at any time.'" Trindade v. Superior Court (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 857, 860.

DISCUSSION

Montald argues that the Cross-Complaint is factually devoid. The Court agrees. Johnson’s causes of actions are largely devoid of any specific facts or allegations. Johnson states that the “Complaint on file...seeks damages arising out of an alleged accident which occurred on or about May 17, 2017.” In reading this Cross-Complaint, the Court is completely unaware as to the subject accident is. There are general allegations that Montald is responsible for the accident, but no facts providing a basis for these claims. The negligence section is comparatively barren of factual allegations. The Court sustains the demurrer, with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Rembert Montald’s Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint without Motion to Strike is SUSTAINED, with 30 days leave to amend.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.