Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV01624, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV01624 Hearing Date: March 20, 2024 Dept: F43
Dept. F43
Date: 3-20-24
Case # 23CHCV01624, Juan Ayala vs.
Pitchess Detention Center, et al.
Trial Date: N/A
DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTIES: Defendant State of
California
RESPONDING PARTIES: N/A
RELIEF REQUESTED
Demurrer to the Complaint
·
1st
Cause of Action: Negligence
·
2nd
Cause of Action: Premises Liability
RULING: Demurrer to the first cause of action
is sustained with leave to amend. Demurrer to the second cause of action is
overruled.
SUMMARY OF ACTION
On June 5, 2023, Plaintiff Juan Ayala
(“Plaintiff”) initiated this action when he filed his Complaint against
Defendants Pitchess Detention Cetner, County of Los Angeles, City of Los
Angeles, State of California, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and Does
1 to 50, inclusive, asserting two causes of action for (1) General Negligence;
and (2) Premises Liability. Plaintiff
alleges on May 14, 2022, while under medical attention at the Pitchess
Detention Center, he received eye drops that affected his vision and was left
unattended in an area where the floor was wet and slippery. Plaintiff alleges he was rushed through this
area by a guard employee and was injured.
On November 14, 2023, Defendant State of
California (“Defendant”) filed its demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. No opposition has been filed.
ANALYSIS
Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant
has requested that the Court take judicial notice under Evidence Code section
452, subdivision (g) of the following: (1) that the Pitchess Detention Center
is owned and operated by Los Angeles County; (2) attached to the
Adams Declaration as Exhibit 1 is a printout from the Los Angeles County
website for the Pitchess Detention Center; and (3) attached to the Adams
Declaration as Exhibit 2 is an informational sheet published by the Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department with visiting rules and instructions for the
facility. The Court denies the requests.
Demurrer to Complaint
Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10. Defendant demurs to the First Cause of Action
for Negligence and Second Cause of Action for Premises Liability arguing that
both causes of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action against Defendant.
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. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 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.)
Meet and Confer
Before filing a demurrer, the demurring
party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading for
the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would
resolve the objections raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).)
The demurrer is accompanied by the
declaration of Deputy Attorney General Andrew F. Adams, which satisfies the
meet and confer requirements. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a); Declaration
of Deputy Attorney General Andrew F. Adams, ¶¶ 4-7.)
First
Cause of Action: Negligence
The basic elements of an actionable negligence claim are:
(1) a duty on the part of defendant toward plaintiff; (2) defendant’s breach of
that duty; (3) and harm to the plaintiff caused by the breach. (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1
Cal.5th 1132, 1142.)
Under the Government Claims Act, “[a] public
entity is not liable for an injury . . .” [e]xcept as otherwise provided by
statute . . . .”¿ (Gov’t Code § 815;¿State ex rel. Department of California
Highway Patrol v. Superior Court¿(2015) 60 Cal.4th¿1002, 1009.)
Here, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations are
insufficient to constitute a cause of action for negligence against Defendant. Plaintiff has failed to identify the statute
providing for Defendant’s liability for the alleged incident in the
Complaint. Accordingly, the Court
sustains the demurrer to the First Cause of Action of the Complaint for
Negligence. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)
Second Cause of
Action: Premise Liability
California Government Code section 835 provides that “a
public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its
property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous
condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by
the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably
foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either: (a)
[a] negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity
within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b)
[t]he public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous
condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have
taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.” (Govt. Code, § 835.)
Section 830 provides that “‘[d]angerous condition’ means a
condition of property that creates a substantial . . . risk of injury when such
property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is
reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.” (Id., § 830, subd. (a).) Further, “‘[p]roperty of a public entity’ and
‘public property’ mean real or personal property owned or controlled by the
public entity. . . .” (Id., § 830, subd. (c).)
Here, Defendant argues that the Complaint is missing an
allegation that the accident took place on the Defendant’s property. Upon review of the Complaint, the Court finds
Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to constitute a cause of action for premises
liability against Defendant. Government
Code section 835 requires Plaintiff to allege that the incident took place on
Defendant’s property, which Plaintiff has done by alleging that Defendant
“negligently, owned, maintained, managed and operated the described
premises.” (Complaint p. 5.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to
allege that the incident took place on Defendant’s property because the County
of Los Angeles and not Defendant owns Pitchess Detention Center, however
Defendant did not provide proper proof for judicially noticing that fact. As a result, because Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant owned,
operated, and maintained the premises, the demurrer
on that ground is overruled. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)
Leave to Amend
Although Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to show how
the pleading can be cured, the Court will allow leave to amend as this is the
first demurrer and there is a possibility of successfully amending the Complaint.
CONCLUSION
Defendant State of California’s demurrer
to the first cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.
Defendant State of California’s demurrer
to the second cause of action is overruled.
Moving party to give notice.