Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV16121, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV16121 Hearing Date: September 8, 2022 Dept: 28
Defendants Goldenvoice, LLC and AEG Presents, LLC’s Demurrer with Motion toStrike;
Defendant APEX Security Group, Inc.’s Demurrer with Motion to Strike
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2021, Plaintiff Joshua Olaoniye (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Goldenvoice, LLC (“Goldenvoice”), AEG Presents, LLC (“AEG”) and APEX Security Group, Inc. (“APEX”) for negligence and battery.
On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the FAC, adding a cause of action for false imprisonment.
On August 11, 2022, AEG and Goldenvoice (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Demurrer with Motion to Strike to be heard on September 7, 2022. The Court continued the hearing to September 8, 2022.
On August 11, 2022, APEX filed a Demurrer with Motion to Strike to be heard on September 8, 2022.
Trial is scheduled for June 30, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
AEG and Goldenvoice request the Court sustain the demurrer to both causes of action for failing to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. Moving Defendants also request the Court strike request for attorney’s fees.
APEX requests the Court sustain the demurrer to both causes of action for failing to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. Apex also request the Court strike the request for attorney’s fees.
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 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. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.)
In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code Section 3294. (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704, 721.) These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code § 3294 (a).) “Malice is defined in the statute as conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others." (Coll. Hosp., Inc., supra, 8 Cal. 4th at 725 [examining Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1)].)
“[S]imple negligence will not justify an award of punitive damages.” (Spencer v. San Francisco Brick Co. (1907) 5 Cal.App.126, 128.) Civil Code § 3294(a) states: “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” “[E]ven gross negligence, or recklessness is insufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages.” (Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal App 3d 82, 87.)
DISCUSSION
FAC
Plaintiff filed the FAC after the CCP §472 deadline without a stipulation; as such, the original complaint is still the operative complaint for both of these demurrers.
Overview
Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff was attending a musical festival put on by AEG and Goldenvoice. While at the festival, APEX employees, acting as security guards, informed Plaintiff he would need to be instructed off the premises for not having a proper ticket for the area he was in. Plaintiff alleges he agreed to be escorted off premises but instead was taken to and pushed into a chain link enclosure. While in the area, he attempted to answer his phone; Plaintiff alleges that he was then tackled and handcuffed by APEX employees. He was finally taken, while handcuffed, to the exit. Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants failed to train and supervise security personnel, resulting in damages to Plaintiff.
AEG and Goldenvoice’s Demurrer
Moving Defendants first allege that Plaintiff wrongfully asserts a cause of action for negligence, rather than negligent hiring/retention/supervision, etc. The Court disagrees; a general cause of action for negligence can be applicable here. Plaintiff has made the conscious choice to plead a cause of action for the more general negligence. As such, the cause of action will be evaluated under the negligence framework.
Plaintiff alleges that Moving Defendants had a duty as owners/managing agents of the festival to ensure Plaintiff was safely escorted from the festival. He identifies that breach as a failure to train or supervise the security guards working at the festival. However, Plaintiff has provided no basis to establish Moving Defendants had control over the security guards under a theory of negligence that would provide a basis for breach or causation. Plaintiff never clearly asserts that APEX’s employees were acting as agents for Moving Defendants or ; as such, the Court sustains the demurrer.
The cause of action for battery has similar issues. There is no assertion that the relevant security guards were agents or employees of Moving Defendants. The currently articulated relationship is too tenuous to establish vicarious liability. As such, the Court sustains the demurrer.
APEX’s Demurrer
APEX similarly argues that the first cause of action is wrongfully identified as negligence, which the Court addressed above. The Court finds that the cause of action for negligence is also clearly pleaded when reading the complaint liberally and in context. APEX, as a company providing security, had a duty to act in a reasonable manner when providing such security. Plaintiff alleges that APEX’s employees used unnecessary force, causing physical and emotional injury to Plaintiff. As such, the Court sustains the demurrer to this point.
The Court also finds that the cause of action for battery is sufficient pled. Plaintiff plead that APEX’S employees touched Plaintiff multiple times, including placing Plaintiff in a headlock, which Plaintiff resisted. It is reasonable to assume that a person would generally find being placed in a headlock and handcuffed to be offensive touch. Plaintiff alleges he was injured as a result of this touching. As such, the Court sustains the demurrer on this issue as well.
Motion to Strike
All Defendants request the Court strike requests for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff has provided no contractual or statutory basis for attorney’s fees within the complaint. As such, the Court will strike the request.
CONCLUSION
Defendants Goldenvoice, LLC and AEG Presents, LLC’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED, with 30 days leave to amend.
Defendant APEX Security Group, Inc.’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.
Both Motions to Strike are GRANTED, with 30 days leave to amend. The request for attorney’s fees is stricken.
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.