Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV19827, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19827    Hearing Date: April 28, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff Latina Young initiated this action against Defendant Nancy Watson. The Court previously sustained Defendant’s demurrers to the original complaint and First Amended Complaint, finding that the pleadings failed to plead sufficient facts and were uncertain. Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on February 21, 2023, alleging (1) breach of contract, (2) general negligence, (3) intentional tort, and (4) premises liability.

            On March 27, 2023, Defendant filed the instant demurrer to the SAC, arguing that the SAC fails to plead sufficient facts and is uncertain.   

LEGAL STANDARD

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (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. (Ibid.) 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, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) A demurrer for uncertainty is granted “if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) Usually, a complaint does not need to be a “model of clarity” to survive a demurrer because most ambiguities can be clarified through discovery. (Ibid.)

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.) The Court notes that Defendant has complied with the meet and confer requirement. (See Watson Decl.)

DISCUSSION

I. Breach of Contract

To establish breach of contract, a plaintiff must show: (1) the contract existed, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff. (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.)  

Plaintiff alleges an oral contract whereby a housing program agreed to pay monthly rent on behalf of Plaintiff. (SAC ¶ BC-1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the contract by failing to “provide under her legal duty of care, to provide a safe and healthy rental premises. Violations of constitutional laws. Breach of Warranty of Habitability civil code 1941.1 & 17920.3(a) with actual notices.” (Id., ¶ BC-2.) The alleged injuries resulting from Defendant’s breach are “Brain injuries/spinal.” (Id., ¶ BC-4.)

The SAC fails to articulate a breach of contract. There is no discernible connection between the housing program’s promise to pay rent for Plaintiff and Defendant failing to provide a safe premises. The demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to breach of contract.

II. General Negligence

The elements of negligence are: (1) a duty to exercise ordinary care; (2) breach of that duty; (3) causation; and (4) damages. (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.)

The SAC alleges that Defendant violated her duty to exercise due care but fails to articulate what that duty is or how it was breached. The allegations describe a variety of injuries to Plaintiff and her daughter with no discernible connection to Defendant. The allegations are vague and fail to state a cause of action. To the extent the claim is based on Defendant’s duty as a landlord to provide a safe premises, it is duplicative of the premises liability claim, discussed below. The demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to negligence.

III. Intentional Tort

            The allegations under this cause of action list out injuries similar to the ones alleged under negligence and similarly fail to articulate liability against Defendant. Additionally, Plaintiff does not specify what tort Defendant allegedly committed. The allegations are uncertain and fail to state a cause of action. The demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to intentional tort.

IV. Premises Liability

            The elements of premises liability mirror those for negligence: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158.) “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.” (Ibid., internal citations omitted.) A landlord has a duty to provide reasonable protection against foreseeable crimes committed by third parties. (Sandoval v. Bank of Am. (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382, fn. 1; Tan v. Arnel Management Co. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1087, 1097.)

The SAC contains sufficient allegations to support an inference that Defendant, as landlord, failed to ensure a safe premises for Plaintiff, a tenant. The SAC alleges that Defendant was aware Plaintiff was being sexually assaulted and knew that other tenants were involved. The SAC implies that there were multiple assaults and that Defendant knew they were ongoing. Therefore, it may be reasonably inferred that the harm to Plaintiff was foreseeable and that Defendant had a duty to prevent it.

Although the SAC is not a model of clarity, the ambiguities may be resolved in discovery. (See A.J. Fistes Corp., supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 695.) The demurrer is OVERRULED as to premises liability.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend on all claims except premises liability. The demurrer is OVERRULED as to premises liability. Defendant shall file an answer within 20 days.