Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 24STCV23773, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV23773    Hearing Date: June 3, 2025    Dept: 37

Christopher Stone v. City of Los Angeles, et al.                                 Hearing Date: 6/3/2025

                                                                                                            (24STCV23773)

Tentative Ruling on Defendants’ Demurrers

On September 16, 2025, Christopher Stone (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against the City of Los Angeles (“City”), the County of Los Angeles (“County”), the University of Southern California (“USC”),  Citiguard, Inc. (“Citiguard”), Los Conejos Properties, LLC (“Los Conejos”), Socios Cambria, LP (“Socios Cambria”), Solari Enterprises, Inc. (“Solari”), Balubhai G. Patel as an individual and trustee of the Balubhai Revocable Trust (“Patel), Pravin Ahir (“Ahir”), Nicolas Orellana, Gladys Orellana (collectively “Defendants”).

Plaintiff is a tenant who lives across the street from the Stuart Hotel. The Complaint alleges that Defendants provide outreach and homeless services to unhoused persons who reside at the Stuart Hotel as part of Defendant City’s Inside Safe program. Plaintiff states that he has observed bonfires, open drug consumption, sidewalk obstruction, and sleepless nights due to various emergency vehicles responding to incidents at the Stuart Hotel caused by Inside Safe participants. Plaintiff now brings this action alleging two causes of action: (1) Public Nuisance in violation of Civ. Code §§ 3479 and 3489; and (2) Negligence (Civ. Code § 1714).

On April 2, 2025, Socios Cambria and Solari filed a Cross-Complaint against the other Defendants with three causes of action: (1) Equitable/Implied Indemnity, (2) Apportionment and Contribution; and (3) Declaratory Relief.

On April 1, 2025, Defendants Citi Guard, County, and USC each separately filed a demurrer to the Complaint, asserting that the two causes of action alleged against them failed because they did not state sufficient facts.

On May 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to all three demurrers. Plaintiff asserts that on March 17, 2025, Plaintiff requested that all Defendants stipulate to allow Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint while Plaintiff would stipulate to another extension for demurring parties, but not all parties agreed to the stipulation. (Stone Decl., Ex. 1.) Defendants USC, and the County agreed to the stipulation, and while Defendant Citi Guard was amenable to the stipulation, no agreement was reached with the other Defendants, so no stipulation was reached. (Nikolenko Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6.).  

Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the demurrer be sustained with 10 days leave to amend.  (See Eghtesad v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 406, 412 citing City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 747 [“Our Supreme Court has observed that where ‘plaintiff has not had an opportunity to amend the complaint in response to the demurrer, leave to amend is liberally allowed as a matter of fairness, unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment.’ ”].)

Where the court finds that further meet and confer between counsel would likely be productive, the court has the discretion to order counsel to “meaningfully discuss the pleadings with an eye toward reducing the number of issues or eliminating the need for a demurrer, and to continue the hearing date to facilitate that effort.” (Dumas v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 356, fn. 3; see also Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967– 968 [courts have inherent authority to regulate proceedings in ways consistent with statutes]; CCP, § 430.42(c) [“Nothing in this section [§ 430.41] prohibits the court from ordering a conference on its own motion at any time or prevents a party from requesting that the court order a conference to be held.”] [italics added].) 

Given that the court liberally grants leave to amend in the absence of a showing of prejudice, all Defendants should have agreed to allow the Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint. The court sustains Defendants’ demurrer with leave to amend. Plaintiff is granted 10 days leave to amend. The court sets the OSC RE: Amended Complaint for, and continues the Case Management Conference to, June 18, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.  Defendant City to give notice.