Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV37268, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37268    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Demurrer without Motion to Strike.

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

BACKGROUND

On October 8, 2021, Plaintiff Kris Anne Louis (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), California Department of Transporation (“CDT”), Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), Segway, Inc. (“Segway”) and United Grand Corporation (“UGC”) for premises liability, strict products liability and negligence.

On July 21, 2022, Segway filed an answer. On July 22, 2022, the State filed an answer. On August 9, 2022, the Court dismissed CDT, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. On August 8, 2022, the City filed an answer.

On September 7, 2022, Lyft filed a Demurrer to be heard on October 4, 2022. On September 27, 2022, Lyft filed a reply.

Trial is scheduled for July 19, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Lyft requests the Court sustain the demurrer to the second and third causes of action for failure to state a cause of action.

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.)

Following the sustaining of a demurrer, with leave to amend, Plaintiff is only allowed to amend the cause of action in the pleading to which the demurrer was sustained; the Plaintiff must obtain permission to add a new cause of action in an amended pleading. (People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Clausen (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 770, 785.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges when riding on a Lyft scooter, one of the wheels struck an uneven portion of the roadway, causing Plaintiff severe damages. Plaintiff alleges that Segway manufactures the subject scooters for Lyft. Plaintiff further alleges that the scooters do not have adequate safety features and that the brakes, accelerator, and sticks do not work as intended.

Lyft argues that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to provide sufficient facts to state a cause of action for strict liability or negligence. Plaintiff merely states that the subject scooter “malfunctioned and/or failed to stop,” but provides no information about any attempts to stop the scooter, what the alleged malfunction was, or how it caused her to fall. The Court agrees—with the facts as provided, it is difficult to identify what, if any, supposed defects are the subject of the complaint. There is no indication if products liability is based on a manufacturing defect, design defect, or failure to warn. The burden shifts to Plaintiff.

The Court does not have any opposition record from Plaintiff, but notes that Lyft submitted a reply to “Plaintiff’s untimely opposition,” indicating Lyft was served with an opposition. The Court continues the hearing on the motion so that Plaintiff can file a copy of the opposition with the Court, so that the Court may evaluate the demurrer on the merits.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Demurrer without Motion to Strike is CONTINUED to October 18, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

            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.