Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCV01034, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01034    Hearing Date: April 25, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 4-25-24

Case #22CHCV01034, Sarah Fry Bruch, et al. vs. Randall Prince, et al.

Trial Date: N/A

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Plant Works Group, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Sarah Fry Bruch and Gregory Bruch

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Complaint

·         1^st Cause of Action for Negligence

RULING: Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

This complaint concerns a fire that injured decedent Plaintiff David Bruch. The fire occurred at a building located at 8423 N. Canoga Ave on October 18, 2021. Plaintiffs Sarah Fry Bruch and Gregory Bruch (Plaintiffs) have alleged that each named Defendant contributed to the fire in some way, through the equipment designed, manufactured, sold, or installed in the building; by neglecting to adhere to building codes and regulations to maintain the facility; and/or by failing to follow code compliance in the operation of the business at the facility.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on November 1, 2022. In their complaint, Plaintiffs have alleged eight causes of action related to negligence and liability. Defendant Plant Works Group, Inc., (Defendant) is the demurring party. On September 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) that identified Defendant as Doe 2. The only cause of action in Plaintiffs’ complaint that included Doe 2 was Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for negligence, which lists Does 1 through 30.

After Plaintiffs amended their complaint to substitute Defendant for Doe 2, Plaintiffs did not make any substantive subsequent amendments to the allegations contained in their complaint. That means that there are no specific allegations alleged in the complaint related to Defendant.

Defendant demurred to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action on December 12, 2023. Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s demurrer.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (CCP § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law…” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

First Cause of Action for Negligence

Defendant demurs to Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action on the basis that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain.

To state a claim for negligence, a plaintiff needs to allege that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the plaintiff’s damages were proximately caused by the breach. (Zamora v. Shell Oil Co. (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 204, 210.)

Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendant Plant Works in particular owed Plaintiffs a duty of care. Plaintiffs have alleged generally that “each and all of the Defendants identified in Paragraph 33…and DOES 1 through 30 owed duties of care to foreseeable persons who were invited to be on-site” at the property. (Comp., ¶ 30.) Beyond these allegations about the Does, Plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege what Defendant’s connection to the property was or why Defendant in particular owed Plaintiffs a duty of care. Because Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty of care, Plaintiffs have also not pled how Defendant breached any duty to Plaintiffs. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege how Defendant contributed to Plaintiffs’ damages.

The complaint is also uncertain as to how Defendant was involved with the incident that took place. There is nothing in the complaint indicating whether Defendant owned the property, whether it caused the fire, whether it manufactured materials in the property, whether it was a tenant there, etc. Despite Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary in their opposition, the complaint is not specific enough for Defendant to respond. It is also worth noting that Plaintiff did match up each of the named Defendants with specific actions they undertook or actions that they failed to perform properly. Plaintiff must do the same for Defendant Plant Works

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Negligence is sustained with leave to amend.

Plaintiff is given 30 days leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice to all parties.