Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV23330, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV23330    Hearing Date: September 29, 2022    Dept: 28

Cross-Defendant Barlingual, LLC’s Demurrer to Jonas Tahlin, Absolut Elyx Spirits USA, LLC and Pernod Ricard USA’s First Amended Cross-Complaint 

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

BACKGROUND

On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff Abel Adrian Gonzalez Martin (“Plaintiff’) filed this action against Defendants Jonas Tahlin (“Tahlin”), Absolut Elyx Spirits USA, LLC (“AES”) and Pernod Ricard USA (“PR”) for general negligence and premises liability. On October 23, 2020, Plaintiff amended his complaint to include Defendants Barlingual, LLC (“Barlingual”), Global 360 Protective Services (“Global 360”), Legacy Marketing Partners, LLC (“LMP”), Paul Oakenfold (“Oakenfold”), Anthony Lewinter (“Lewinter”), Taylor Hackford (“Hackford”), and Helen Mirren Hackford (“Mirren”)

On October 15, 2020, Tahlin, AES, and PR filed their answer. They also filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Barlingual, Global 360, LMP and Oakenfold for implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, comparative negligence and contribution, negligence, and declaratory relief. On June 21, 2022, they filed the FACC, adding causes of action for express indemnity, breach of written contract, declaratory relief (duty to defend) and declaratory relief (duty to indemnify). LMP filed its answer on July 18, 2022.

On November 19, 2020, LMP filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Tahlin, Barlingual, Global 360, and Oakenfold for indemnity, equitable apportionment, and declaratory relief. On January 4, LMP filed its first amended answer to the complaint. On December 28, 2020, Tahlin filed an answer to LMP’s Cross-Complaint. On May 6, 2021, Barlingual filed its answer to LMP’s Cross-Complaint.

On December 7, 2020, Global 360 filed its answer to the complaint. Global 360 filed its answer to Tahlin’s Cross-Complaint on January 12, 2021, and filed a Cross-Complaint of its own against Tahlin, AES, and PR. On January 14, 2021, Global 360 answered LMP’s Cross-Complaint and filed a Cross-Complaint against LMP.

Tahlin, AES, and PR filed their answer to Global 360’s Cross-Complaint on January 19, 2021.

On May 3, 2021, Barlingual filed its answer to the complaint, and a Cross-Complaint against SOES 1 through 50.

On August 22, 2022, Barlingual filed a Demurrer to Tahlin, AES and PR’s First Amended Complaint to be heard on September 29, 2022. On September 16, 2022, Tahling, AES, and PR (“Opposing Defendants”) filed an opposition. On September 22, 2022, Barlingual filed a reply.

Trial is currently set for January 31, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Barlingual requests the Court sustain the demurrer to the first, second, third, fourth and seventh causes of action for failure to constitute causes of action and for being vague and ambiguous.

Opposing Defendants request 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.)

“Thus, no indemnity may be obtained from an entity that has no pertinent duty to the injured party [citations], that is immune from liability [citations], or that has been found not to be responsible for the injury.” (Jocer Enterprises, Inc. v. Price (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 559, 573-574.) “Equitable indemnity is only available among tortfeasors who are jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's injury.” (Stop Loss Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. Brown & Toland Medical Group (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1040-1041.)

CCP Section 1060 states that a party may request declaratory relief based upon “actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties.”

DISCUSSION

Judicial Notice

The Court takes judicial notice of the request documents pursuant to Evidence Code §452.

Demurrer

Barlingual requests the Court sustain the demurrer as to the causes of action for implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, comparative negligence and contribution, negligence, and declaratory relief.

The Court granted Barlingual MSJ, meaning Barlingual is not potentially liable for Plaintiff’s injury. As such, any claim for equitable indemnity, implied indemnity or comparative negligence is without merit. The above articulated causes of action are made on an equitable basis, not a contractual basis. Meaning that there is no potential for Barlingual to be potentially liable for equitable or total indemnity to other parties, on the basis of Plaintiff’s underlying injury.

The Cross-Complaint's cause of action for negligence is based upon negligence performed by Barlingual during the subject event relating to the subject incident. The Court has already found that Barlingual was not negligent, and thus the cause of action for negligence is subject to demurrer.

As the Court finds a basis to sustain the demurrer as to all causes of action asserted against Barlingual, there is no basis for Opposing Defendants to claim declaratory relief. Declaratory relief is derived from liability and claims against Barlingual—as it stands, there are no applicable claims against Barlingual. The Court sustains the demurrer as to this cause of action, as well.

Opposing Defendants argue that whether or not Barlingual can be liable is not the issue before the Court, but rather if the FACC states facts sufficient to support viable causes of action. The Court disagrees; in ruling on a demurrer, the Court considers the pleadings and facts that may be taken via judicial notice. The Court has taken judicial notice of the requested documents, including Barlingual’s previous MSJ. It is clear that Opposing Defendants cannot state the applicable causes of action given the Court’s previous ruling.

CONCLUSION

Cross-Defendant Barlingual, LLC’s Demurrer to Jonas Tahlin, Absolut Elyx Spirits USA, LLC and Pernod Ricard USA’s First Amended Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED, without 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.