Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from an assault at a gym.  Plaintiff Cedric Christie alleges he was assaulted by “John Doe” while he was using one of Defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, LLC’s facilities.  Plaintiff alleges Doe “without saying a single word, attacked Plaintiff from behind, strangling him on his neck with [a] jump rope.”  Plaintiff further alleges Doe violently struck him on the face and head.  Plaintiff alleges Defendant was at fault for failing to implement proper security and safety procedures, including requiring guests like Doe to check in, and also for allowing Doe to remain on the premises after he had already assaulted Plaintiff.  

The operative complaint alleges three claims for (1) negligence, (2) premises liability, (3) negligent hiring, supervision or retention of an employee, and (4) assault and battery.  Only the first three claims are alleged against 24 Hour Fitness.   

This hearing is on Defendant’s demurrer.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot allege his three negligence claims because it was not foreseeable that Doe would attack Plaintiff, and, therefore, Defendant did not have a duty to Plaintiff.   

MEET AND CONFER 

Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41 requires that before the filing of a demurrer, the moving party “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone” with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a).)  The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(2).)  Thereafter, the moving party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(3).)  Defendant submits the Declaration of Kristie Wong who attests the parties met and conferred by phone on February 12 and 13, 2025 which is more than five days before Defendant filed the demurrer on February 27, 2025.  This satisfies the meet and confer requirements of § 430.41.  

LEGAL STANDARD 

A demurrer to a complaint may be general or special. A general demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint on the ground it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The allegations in the complaint as a whole must be reviewed to determine whether a set of alleged facts constitutes a cause of action.¿(People v. Superior Court (Cahuenga's the Spot)¿(2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1376.)¿A complaint need only meet fact-pleading requirements, which requires a statement of facts constituting a cause of action in ordinary¿and concise language, and should allege ultimate facts that, as a whole, apprise defendant of the factual basis of the claim. (Code Civ. Proc., §425.10(a)(1);¿Navarrete v. Meyer¿(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.) 

A special demurrer challenges other defects in the complaint, including whether a pleading is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)  The term “uncertain” includes the issue of whether the pleading is “ambiguous and unintelligible.”  (Id.) A demurrer for uncertainty should be sustained if the complaint is drafted in such a manner that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., the defendant cannot determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts are directed against the defendant. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) 

A demurrer on the ground of uncertainty is disfavored and should be sustained only when the complaint is so incomprehensible that the defendant cannot reasonably respond since ambiguities may be clarified in discovery.¿(Lickiss v. Financial indus. Regulatory Auth.¿(2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)  Uncertain allegations should be liberally construed in testing a complaint for adequacy against a demurrer, particularly when the facts that are uncertain are presumptively within the defendant’s knowledge.¿(Childs v. State¿(1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 155, 160.)¿The particularity requirement in a pleading depends on the extent to which the defendant, in fairness, needs detailed information the plaintiff can conveniently provide, while less particularity is required when the defendant is assumed to have the knowledge. (Doheny Park Terrance Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exch.¿(2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099.) 

In ruling on a demurrer, the court is guided by the following long-settled rules: The court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. ¿The court may also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. Further, the court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. (Blank v. Kirwan¿(1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 

Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend¿must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.¿(Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)¿The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully.¿(Id.;¿Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.)¿However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a¿demurrer¿without¿leave¿to¿amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245). 

DISCUSSION 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not alleged facts supporting a finding that Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff, which is an essential element of each of her negligence claims.  The Court agrees.   

The elements of a negligence cause of action are¿duty, breach, causation, and damages.¿(Ortega v. Kmart Corp.¿(2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205.)¿¿Premises¿liability¿is comprised of the same elements as¿negligence.¿(Kesner v. Superior Court¿(2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158.)  In regard to¿premises¿liability, “the¿duty¿arising from possession and control of property is adherence to the same standard of care that applies in¿negligence¿cases.” (Id.)  A claim for¿negligent¿hiring, retention or supervision of employees is governed by basic negligence principles, and thus¿also requires¿a¿showing¿of¿duty, breach, and causation.¿(Montague v. AMN Healthcare, Inc.¿(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1515, 1524.) 

The existence of a legal duty is a question of law for the court to determine.  (Ann¿M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center¿(1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674.)  Foreseeability is a “crucial factor” in determining the existence and scope of a legal duty.  (Id. at 676.) “Foreseeability, when analyzed to determine the existence or scope of a duty, is a question of law to be decided by the court”. (Id. at 678.)  

There is a “well established” ¿rule that commercial proprietors (because they generally stand in a special relationship with their tenants, patrons, or invitees) are required to “maintain land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition” and that this general duty includes taking “reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary measures.” (Id. at 674.) 

The scope of the proprietor’s duty is determined in part by balancing the foreseeability of the harm against the burden of the duty to be imposed. (Isaacs¿v. Huntington Memorial Hospital¿(1985) 38 Cal.3d 112, 125.)  “[I]n cases where the burden of preventing future harm is great, a high degree of foreseeability may be¿required.¿[Citation.] On the other¿hand, in cases where there are strong policy reasons for preventing the harm, or the harm can be prevented by simple means, a lesser degree of foreseeability may be required.”  (Id.)  In other words, duty in such circumstances is determined by a balancing of ‘foreseeability’ of the criminal acts against the ‘burdensomeness, vagueness, and efficacy’ of the proposed security measures.”¿(Ann¿M., 6 Cal.4th at 678–679.) 

“Foreseeability can rarely, if ever, be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent¿crime on the landowner’s premises.  To hold otherwise would be to impose an unfair burden upon landlords and, in effect, would force landlords to become the insurers of public safety, contrary to well-established policy in this state. [Citations].” (Ann M., 6 Cal.4th at 678–679.)  

Here, there are no allegations of prior similar incidents of violent crime at the 24 Hour Fitness location at issue in this case.  There is also no allegation that 24 Hour Fitness knew of Doe’s propensity for violence.  Accordingly, there are no facts to support a finding that 24 Hour Fitness owed a duty to Plaintiff to prevent the attack by Doe.   

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer with 20 days’ leave to amend. 

DATED: April 1, 2025        ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court