Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV03720, Date: 2024-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03720    Hearing Date: July 25, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 7-25-24

Case #23CHCV03720, Paola Boteo Alfaro, et al. vs. Annie Beaudoin, et al.

Trial Date: N/A

 

DEMURRER

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Paola Boteo Alfaro and Eddio Botero Perez

 

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Complaint

·         3rd Cause of Action for Negligence

 

RULING: Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

 

SUMMARY OF ACTION

This action arises out of an automobile versus pedestrian accident that happened on January 18, 2023. Plaintiff Paola Boteo Alfaro (Plaintiff) was crossing the street en route to school when Defendant Annie Beaudoin (Beaudoin), who was operating a motor vehicle, crashed into Plaintiff.

 

Plaintiff has alleged one cause of action against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) for negligence. Plaintiff alleges that the road she was crossing, which is next to the school, is unreasonably dangerous. She alleges that Defendants had a duty to make it safer.

 

Defendant LAUSD filed its demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on June 6, 2024. Plaintiffs Paola Boteo Alfaro and Eddio Botero Perez oppose LAUSD’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.)

 

Third Cause of Action for Negligence

Defendant LAUSD demurs to Plaintiffs’ cause of action for negligence on the basis that it does not states facts sufficient to allege a cause of action against LAUSD and on the basis that a school district does not have any duty to provide crossing guards.

 

The elements of a negligence cause of action are duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages. (See Peredia v. HR Mobile Services, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680.)

 

LAUSD argues in its demurrer that Plaintiffs have failed to cite a statutory basis for their cause of action for negligence. To bring a cause of action against a public entity, a plaintiff must have statutory authority to do so. (Gov. Code § 815(a).)

 

Plaintiffs do cite Government Code §§ 815.2, 815.4, and 820, et seq., in their FAC. These sections all deal with whether a public entity is liable for injury causes by an act or omission of an employee or independent contractor of a public entity. There is nothing in Plaintiffs FAC that suggests that Defendant Beaudoin was an employee of LAUSD or that any employee of LAUSD was involved in the accident. Plaintiffs also do not cite any sections that point to the specific duties that they are alleging that LAUSD and the other Defendants failed to perform. Plaintiffs’ opposition points to Education Code §§ 44808 and 32280 et seq., but neither of these sections are cited in their FAC.

 

Because Plaintiffs have failed to indicate a statutory basis for the duty that LAUSD allegedly breached, Plaintiffs cannot maintain a cause of action for negligence. LAUSD’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Third Cause of Action is sustained with leave to amend.

 

CONCLUSION

Defendant LAUSD’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Third Cause of Action is sustained with leave to amend.

 

Plaintiffs are given 30 days leave to amend.

 

Moving party to give notice to all parties.