Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV18394, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18394    Hearing Date: February 24, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant City of Beverly Hills’s Demurrer

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

BACKGROUND

On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff Alejandro Morales (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), City of Los Angeles (“City of LA”), City of Beverly Hills (“BH”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), California Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) and United States of America (“USA”) for premises liability and dangerous condition of public property.

On December 1, 2022, CDOT filed an answer. On December 8, 2022, the Court dismissed USA, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. On December 15, 2022, the County filed an answer. On January 27, 2023, LACMTA filed an answer.

On January 27, 2023, BH filed a Demurrer to be heard on February 24, 2023. On February 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On February 16, 2023, BH filed a reply.

Trial is scheduled for December 1, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

BH requests the Court sustain the demurrer on the basis that Plaintiff does not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action against BH.

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 negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. Premises liability ‘is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises’; accordingly, ‘mere possession with its attendant right to control conditions on the premises is a sufficient basis for the imposition of an affirmative duty to act.’ But the duty arising from possession and control of property is adherence to the same standard of care that applies in negligence cases.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1159.)

DISCUSSION

Judicial Notice

The Court takes judicial notice of the requested documents and facts, subject to EC § 452(g)-(h). Facts are judicially noticeable at the demurrer stage, as established by CCP § 430.30(a).

Demurrer

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Plaintiff was injured by a defective ceiling at La Cienega Blvd & San Vicente Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90048. This is not within the City of Beverly Hills. The facts in the complaint do not give rise to causes of action against BH, as there is no duty for BH to make safe locations outside of BH’s city limits.

Plaintiff argues that the Court must take the complaint at face value when evaluating a demurrer; this is not entirely correct. The Court may also consider judicially noticeable facts. It is clear from both the face of the complaint and judicially noticeable facts that the subject incident allegedly took place in the city of Los Angeles, not the city of Beverly Hills. The provided address is within the city of Los Angeles, as indicated by “Los Angeles” being listed as the city on the complaint. Under the facts as pled, there is no cause of action against Beverly Hills. The Court sustains the demurrer.

CONCLUSION

Defendant City of Beverly Hills’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED, 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.