Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV17425, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17425    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC’s Demurrer

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

BACKGROUND

On May 26, 2022, Plaintiff Taichandra Fyeldees (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant 99 Cents Only Store LLC (“Defendant”) for general negligence, premises liability and emotional distress.

On June 27, 2022, Defendant filed a Demurrer to be heard on August 11, 2022; Defendant filed an erratum to amend signature errors on June 29, 2022.

Trial is scheduled for November 17, 2023.  

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court sustain the demurrer, without leave to amend, to the entire complaint on the basis that all causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations.

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.)

A cause of action for injury to an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another must be brought within two years of the incident. CCP § 335.1. A general demurrer is appropriate based upon a statute of limitations defense when the defect "clearly and affirmatively appear[s] on the face of the complaint..." (Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 32, 42)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed in May of 2022, stems from an incident occurring on July 30, 2017, in which Plaintiff fell while on Defendant’s premises. Plaintiff’s cause of action for emotional stress is dated as “July 30, 2017, to present”. Plaintiff’s complaint was clearly filed outside of the applicable two-year statute of limitations, even when accounting for the COVID-19 Emergency Rule 9, which tolled the statute of limitations on applicable actions an additional 178 days. Plaintiff was not a minor at the time of the incident, which would have provided a grace period in which Plaintiff could file the motion. As such, it is clear on the face of the complaint that it deficient and cannot be amended. As such, the Court sustains the demurrer, without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Defendant 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC’s Demurrer 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.