Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV15564, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV15564    Hearing Date: August 11, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendants Margaret A. Rahm and Emily R. Rahm’s Demurrer

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

BACKGROUND

On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff Ofelia San Filippo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Cinkar Kitchen Cabinets (“CKC”) and Washington-Allport Properties, LLC. (“WAP LLC.”) for negligence premises liability. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants Margaret A. Rahm (“Margaret”), Emily R. Rahm (“Emily”), Elite Vinyl Windows, Inc. (“EVW”), Washington-Allport Properties, LLC (“WAP”) and Stereo Zone (“SZ”).

On May 29, 2020, WAP LLC. filed an answer. On June 16, 2020, CKC filed an answer.

WAP LLC. was dismissed, without prejudice, on March 29, 2021, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On February 22, 2022, WAP filed an answer. SZ filed its answer on March 11, 2022.

On June 24, 2022, Emily and Margaret (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Demurer to be heard on August 11, 2022. On July 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

Trial is scheduled for November 8, 2022. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Moving Defendants request the Court sustain the demurrer on the basis that Plaintiff does not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action against Moving Defendants to either cause of action.

Plaintiff 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.)

“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. Premises liability ‘is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises’; accordingly, ‘mere possession with its attendant right to control conditions on the premises is a sufficient basis for the imposition of an affirmative duty to act.’ But the duty arising from possession and control of property is adherence to the same standard of care that applies in negligence cases.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1159.)

Under Evidence Code § 452, judicial notice may be taken of: (c) official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of any state and (h) facts that are not reasonably subject to dispute. The Court will take judicial notice of these matters, as long as the adverse party is given sufficient notice and sufficient information is given to the Court. Evidence Code § 453.  

DISCUSSION

Judicial Notice

The Court takes judicial notice of the requested public records search for the property records for 11642 Washington Blvd.

Demurrer

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants negligently maintained and controlled the subject premises, 11642 Washington Blvd., resulting in Plaintiff slipping and falling while at the premises on September 10, 2018.

Moving Defendants argue there are no facts supporting a cause of action against them, as Moving Defendants do not have an interest in the subject property. Rather, Moving Defendants only have an interest in the adjacent property at 11646 Washington Blvd. As there are no allegations as to Moving Defendant’s property, there is no cause of action to be asserted against Defendant. Moving Defendants have no relationship to the subject property, and thus have no duty associated with the property. The public records search verifies that, at the time of the incident, Moving Defendants did not have an ownership interest in the subject property.

Plaintiff argues that the Court must accept the pleadings as true, and that a person who owns or occupies land has a duty to maintain abutting, publicly owned property. (Lopez v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 244, 255.) In articulating that Moving Defendants negligently maintained, controlled, repaired, inspected, managed and cleaned the subject sidewalk, Plaintiff states she has met the requirements to plead the pled causes of action.

The Court disagrees; although typically a demurrer is contained to the facts alleged, a party is allowed to file a demurrer on the basis of a defect proved via judicial notice. It has been established that Moving Defendants did not have an ownership interest in the subject property; thus, the Court assumes that Plaintiff instead is focusing on maintenance and control of the property. However, in California, it is not enough to merely make a conclusory statement that someone expressed control over an area in order to reach the pleading standard. A plaintiff must articulate from where this control or duty is derived; here, Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to establish this. Merely making conclusory claims that match with the CACI requirements is not enough to meet the California pleading standard. Moving Defendants should at least have some idea as to where this cause of action is derived from. As such, the Court sustains the demurrer.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Margaret A. Rahm and Emily R. Rahm’s Demurrer 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.