Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV16121, Date: 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16121    Hearing Date: February 1, 2023    Dept: 28

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 October 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed the FAC, adding a cause of action for false imprisonment.

On January 4, 2023, APEX filed a Demurrer with Motion to Strike to be heard on February 1, 2023.

Trial is scheduled for June 30, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

APEX requests the Court sustain the demurrer to the causes of action for false imprisonment on the basis it is untimely, and Plaintiff did not seek leave prior to adding the new cause of action. APEX also requests 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)].)

DISCUSSION

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.

Demurrer

APEX wrongfully asserts that the Court did not grant leave to amend when sustaining the demurrer to the previous complaint. In reviewing the minute order, the Court clearly finds it granted “30 days leave to amend.” Plaintiff has always alleged via facts that he was deprived of freedom of movement when he was pushed into a chain link enclosure. Even though the cause of action was not initially brought forward, Plaintiff provided facts that would give rise to false imprisonment claims. Leave to amend based on the facts provided would allow Plaintiff to add in additional causes of action stemming from the initial set of facts.

APEX also asserts the statute of limitations has lapsed on causes of action for false imprisonment. False imprisonment has a one-year statute of limitations. CCP § 340. Even under the assumption that the false imprisonment claim relates back to the initial complaint, the initial complaint was filed on April 28, 2021. The complaint lists the date of the incident as April 28, 2019—two years prior to the filing. The Court sustains the demurrer on the basis that the claim exceeds the statute of limitations.

Motion to Strike

APEX requests 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

Defendant APEX Security Group, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s 4^th Cause of Action (False Imprisonment) is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.

Defendant APEX Security Group, Inc.’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED, 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.