Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 25CHCV00697, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25CHCV00697 Hearing Date: May 2, 2025 Dept: F43
Dept. F43
Date: 05-02-25
Case # 25CHCV00697, Navarro v. Blvd 5,
Inc., et al.
Trial Date: None set.
DEMURRER
MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Blvd 5, Inc., HMZ,
Inc., ABZ, Inc., and 2001 Utopia, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Joanna Navarro
RELIEF REQUESTED
Order sustaining demurrer to the entire
complaint.
RULING: Demurrer
is overruled.
SUMMARY OF ACTION
Plaintiff Joanna Navarro (Plaintiff) filed
this product liability case against defendants Blvd 5, Inc., BP America, Inc., HMZ,
Inc., ABZ, Inc., 2001 Utopia, LLC, and Truman Arco, Inc. on February 26,
2025. Plaintiff alleges that while she was
a customer at a gas station on property owned by defendants, she was injured by
a gas pump’s metal cover coming off its base, falling towards her, and making
contact with her body. (Compl., ¶¶ 13-15.)
The complaint alleges five causes of action
against all defendants: (1) negligence; (2) premises liability; (3) strict
products liability - design defect; (4) strict products liability -
manufacturing defect; and (5) strict products liability - failure to warn.
Defendants Blvd 5, Inc., HMZ, Inc., ABZ,
Inc., and 2001 Utopia, LLC (Defendants) demur to the complaint on the grounds that
Plaintiff has misjoined them, several causes of action are uncertain and
unintelligible, and Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute
causes of action.
Plaintiff opposes, asserting that Plaintiff
properly joined all Defendants according to Code of Civil Procedure section
379. Plaintiff contends that she has
properly joined all Defendants who are involved with and own the alleged gas
station. This is sufficient for the
pleading stage. Plaintiff also contends
that the complaint is intelligible and sufficiently pleads facts showing Defendants’
duties, that Defendants breached their duties, that Defendants owned and
controlled the property at issue, and that Defendants’ breaches caused her
injuries.
Defendants reply, reasserting that Plaintiff
did not properly join Defendants because the complaint does not establish a “unity
of interest” between Defendants. Plaintiff
has failed to establish what duty was owed by each Defendant, the injuries
Plaintiff has suffered, and how each defendant was responsible for causing each
injury. The complaint is unintelligible because
Plaintiff has lumped several unrelated Defendants together, and Defendants are
unable to determine in what capacity they are being named and are deemed
responsible by Plaintiff.
MEET AND CONFER
Before filing a demurrer, the parties must
meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The moving party must file and serve a meet
and confer declaration stating either: (1) the means by which the parties met
and conferred, that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the issues
raised in the demurrer; or (2) that the party who filed the pleading subject to
the demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request or failed to meet
and confer in good faith. (Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)
On March 21, 2025, defense counsel called
Plaintiff’s counsel and left a message requesting a call back. (Declaration of Melanie M. Butler, ¶ 2.) Because Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond, defense
counsel emailed attorney Beecher requesting a time to meet and confer
telephonically. (Id. ¶ 3.) After
receiving no responses, defense counsel emailed attorney Beecher a letter
asking that Plaintiff remove defendants Blvd 5 Inc., HMZ, Inc., ABZ Inc. and
2001 Utopia LLC from the complaint or to explain their inclusion in the
complaint by April 4, 2025. (Id.
¶ 4.) Counsel never responded.
ANALYSIS
Demurrer
A¿ party may respond to a pleading against it by demurrer
based on any single or combination of eight enumerated grounds,
including¿that¿“the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action” and is uncertain, meaning “ambiguous and unintelligible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e),
(f).) The grounds for demurring must be
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.)
1. Misjoinder of Parties and Uncertainty
Defendants demur to the entire complaint as defective for
misjoinder of parties and uncertainty. Defendants
contend that the complaint is uncertain and unintelligible because they are
unsure which causes of action and allegations pertain to which defendant. Plaintiff has named six unrelated defendants
and five causes of action but fails to show a causal link between the causes of
action and the Defendants. The complaint
does not differentiate allegations as to the various named parties and instead
lumps all defendants together using vague and conclusory references such of
“Agency” and “Vicarious Liability”.
Plaintiff states that each cause of action asserts
allegations against all defendants and that all defendants were properly joined
as owners of the property where the incident occurred. Any additional facts concerning specific
individuals’ name may be established later during discovery.
“Demurrers for uncertainty under Code of Civil
Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) are disfavored.” (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33
Cal.App.5th 811, 822.) “A demurrer for
uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects
uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery
procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of
California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) The complaint must allege sufficient facts,
rather than conclusions of law, to inform the defending party of the basis of
the claims against it. (Perkins v.
Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d1, 5-6; Antelope Valley Groundwater
Cases (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 241, 265 [“[T]he term ‘ultimate fact’ generally
refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim.”].)
The complaint sufficiently establishes the identity of
each defendant (Compl., ¶¶ 2-7.) and states that Plaintiff will amend the
complaint once she learns the names of the Doe defendants. (Compl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff also specifies that the term
“Defendants” refers to each defendant listed in the complaint and that she
pleads each cause of action against all defendants based either on their
ownership of the property where the incident occurred or that they designed or
manufactured the gas pump at issue. (Compl.,
¶¶ 9, lns. 12-15, 17, 25-26.)
Demurrer for misjoinder lies only where the complaint
fails to establish a (1) “sufficient unity of interest” or (2) a common
question of law or facts as to each defendant.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 378, subd. (a), 430.10, subd. (d).) However, a demurrer for misjoinder does not
lie to challenge allegations that plaintiff is uncertain which defendant caused
his or her injuries. (Landau v. Salam (1971)
4 Cal.3d 901, 908; Geraci v. United Services Auto. Ass’n (1987)
188 Cal.App.3d 1245, 1252.) Further, a
demurrer for misjoinder lacks merit if defendant cannot show that it suffered
prejudice or that its interests are impaired.
(Anaya v. Superior Court (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 228, 231 fn. 1;
see also Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2002)
100 Cal.App.4th 193, 198.)
Plaintiff may establish a unity of interest by pleading a
right arising from an incident involving multiple defendants or an incident
involving jointly owned property. For
example, “a right arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions
exists where several plaintiffs sue for personal injuries suffered in the same
accident.” (Anaya v. Superior Court
(1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 228, 232 [citing Colla v. Carmichael U-Drive Autos (1930)
111 Cal.App.Supp. 784]; see also Aldrich v. Transcontinental Land &
Water Co. (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 788 [involving joint property owners
seeking damages against a subdivider who cheated them].)
Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a basis for joinder. Plaintiff bases joinder on a “unity of
interest” theory, alleging that all defendants owned the property where she
suffered injuries, and that her case arises from all defendants’ negligent
maintenance of the property and negligent manufacturing and design of the gas
pumps. (Compl., ¶¶ 12, 17, 25-26.) Plaintiff also alleges an agency theory under
which all defendants were each other’s agents (Compl., ¶ 9.) and that all defendants
acted individually, jointly, or severally.
(Compl., ¶ 11.) This is
sufficient to establish proper joinder of defendants at the pleading stage.
Finally, because Defendants do not address suffering any
prejudice or impairment to their interests as a result of joinder, their
demurrer based on misjoinder fails.
Therefore, Defendants’ demurrer based on uncertainty and
misjoinder of the parties is overruled.
2. First
Cause of Action: Negligence
Defendants demur to the First Cause of Action for
Negligence as uncertain. Plaintiff
contends that the complaint is straightforward and sufficiently alleges that
Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of care, Defendants breached the duty through
the defective gas pump, and the breach caused Plaintiff’s injuries.
The elements of negligence are (1) the defendant owed
plaintiff a duty of care; (2) defendant breached the duty; (3) plaintiff was
harmed; and (4) defendant’s breach proximately caused plaintiff’s harm. (Restatement 2d Torts, §§
281, 283; Nola M. v. Univ. of S. Cal. (1993) 16
Cal.App.4th 421, 426; 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts,
§ 732, pp. 60-61.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, as owners of the
property where the gas pumps were located, owed a duty of reasonable care in
connection with the gas station and its gas pumps to ensure that the gas pumps
were not in a dangerous condition and hazardous to customers. (Compl., ¶ 17.) Defendants breached this duty by failing to
maintain or inspect the gas pumps. (Ibid.) The gas pumps did not function properly and
were in defective condition, and Defendants did not warn Plaintiff about the
defective gas pumps or provide proper protection. (Compl., ¶ 18.) As a result, when Plaintiff used the gas
pump, the pump’s metal cover dislodged, fell towards her, forced her to make a
sudden and unanticipated movement, and fell on her person. (Compl., ¶¶ 14, 18.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ negligence
directly and proximately caused her injuries.
(Compl., ¶ 22.)
The court finds that the complaint sufficiently alleges injuries
caused by Defendants’ alleged negligence.
Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the First Cause of
Action is overruled.
3. Second Cause of Action: Premises Liability
Defendants demur to the Second Cause of Action as
uncertain. Plaintiff contends that the
complaint is straightforward and sufficiently alleges that Defendants owned the
gas station, owed Plaintiff a duty of care, breached the duty, and that the
breach caused Plaintiff’s damages and injuries.
To establish premises liability, the complaint must
allege facts showing that: (1) defendant was the owner, occupier, or lessor of
the premises; (2) defendant was negligent in the use, maintenance or management
of the premises; and (3) the negligence caused the injury, damage, loss, or
harm to plaintiff. (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d
1611, 1619 [“Premises liability is a form of negligence[.]”]; see also Pultz v. Holgerson (1986) 184
Cal.App.3d 1110, 1116-17 [stating complaint for premises liability based upon
negligence is not subject to strict pleading
requirements and may be generally pled]; Barnes
v. Black (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1473, 1478 [“A landowner owes a duty to
exercise reasonable care to maintain his or her property in such a manner as to
avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of injury.”]; Nicoletti v. Kest (2003) 97 Cal App.5th
140, 146-47 [landowners’ duty of care is not negated if it is foreseeable that
someone might choose to encounter the condition due to necessity or other circumstances].)
Similar to the negligence cause of action, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants owed her a duty to use reasonable care because it owned
the property where Plaintiff was injured.
(Compl., ¶ 26.) Defendants
breached this duty by allowing and instructing Plaintiff to enter the property
to use the gas pump without warning Plaintiff about the dangerous condition of
the gas pump. (Compl., ¶ 27.) Defendants’ negligent ownership, control, operation,
inspection, and maintenance of the property and the gas gump (and its component
parts) caused Plaintiff’s injuries.
(Compl., ¶ 25.)
Like the negligence cause of action, Plaintiff
sufficiently alleges that Defendants’ negligent maintenance of their property
caused Plaintiff’s injuries.
Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the Second Cause of
Action is overruled.
4. Third,
Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action: Strict Products Liability - Design Defect,
Manufacturing Defect, and Failure to Warn
Defendants demur to the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes
of action as uncertain and failing to allege sufficient facts to constitute
causes of action. Defendants contend
that the manufacturing and design defect causes of action do not establish when
each defendant was in possession of the allegedly defective gas pumps and
component parts and the condition of these items at the time of her
injuries. The failure to warn cause of
action does not establish which defendant was responsible for manufacturing and
producing the gas pumps and component parts, what potential risks were knowable
and posed as a danger to Plaintiff, and what warnings or instructions each
defendant should have provided to prevent Plaintiff’s unspecified injuries.
Plaintiff contends that all three causes of action plead
that Defendants designed, produced, manufactured, and sold the gas pump, and
were in the chain of distributing the gas pump.
The complaint also establishes that the gas pump contained manufacturing
defects at the time of manufacture and when it left Defendants’ possession. Defendants’ assertions that they were not the
designers, producers, manufacturers, or sellers of the gas pump are irrelevant
at the pleading stage.
“A manufacturer, distributor, or retailer is liable in
tort if a defect in the manufacture or design of its product causes injury
while the product is being used in a reasonably foreseeable way.” (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994)
8 Cal.4th 548, 560.)
“A ‘manufacturing defect’ occurs from ‘a flaw in
the manufacturing process, resulting in a product that differs from
the manufacturer’s intended result.’”
(Gilead Tenofovir Cases (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 911, 922-23 fn. 7
[quoting Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1057].) A “design defect” exists if (1) “the
plaintiff demonstrates that the product failed to perform as safely as an
ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably
foreseeable manner,” or (2) “the jury finds that the risk of danger inherent in
the challenged design outweighs the benefits of such design.” (Gilead Tenofovir Cases, supra,
98 Cal.App.5th at p. 922, fn. 7 [quoting (Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978)
20 Cal.3d 413, 430].) A failure to warn
defect exists if the manufactures fails to adequately warn an intended product
user of a particular risk that was “known or knowable in light of the generally
recognized and prevailing best scientific and medical knowledge available at
the time of manufacture and distribution.” (Ibid. [quoting Carlin v. Superior
Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1104, 1112].)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants designed, manufactured,
produced, marketed, installed, operated, inspected, and maintained the gas pump
and its component parts. (Compl., ¶¶ 31,
40.) Defendants were responsible for
placing the gas pump into the stream of commerce. (Compl., ¶¶ 31, 40, 49.)
Because Plaintiff used and operated the gas pump,
Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in conducting
their business to properly and reasonably design, market, label, warn, produce,
assemble, and install the gas pump and its component parts. (Compl., ¶ 32.) Defendants allegedly breached their duties,
both individually and collectively, by designing the gas pumps and its parts in
a manner that caused the gas pump and its parts to not perform in a reasonably
foreseeable manner. (Compl., ¶ 33.) The gas pump also contained manufacturing
defects that resulted in parts of the gas pump falling on Plaintiff without
warning. (Compl., ¶ 43.) Plaintiff also alleges that the gas pump did
not include sufficient instructions warning of potential safety hazards or any design
or manufacturing defects. (Compl., ¶¶
43, 45.) The defects and lack of warning
exposed Plaintiff to an unnecessary danger, even though there were reasonably
feasible and cost-effective alternative designs that would have made the gas
pump safer. (Compl., ¶ 34.)
On the day of the incident, Plaintiff used and operated
the gas pump in the manner intended by Defendants, yet Plaintiff was struck by
the gas pump and its component parts.
(Compl., ¶ 35.) As a result,
Plaintiff suffered injuries and harm. (Compl., ¶¶ 36-38.)
Similar to the other causes of action, the complaint
sufficiently specifies the defects and failure to warn caused Plaintiff to suffer
injuries. Plaintiff also sufficiently
alleges the condition of the gas pump at the time of the incident. Plaintiff alleges that when she removed the
gas nozzle/hose from the gas pump, the pump’s metal cover dislodged and began
falling towards Plaintiff. (Compl., ¶
14.)
Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the Third, Fourth,
and Fifth Causes of Action is overruled.
CONCLUSION
Defendants Blvd 5, Inc., HMZ, Inc., ABZ, Inc., and 2001
Utopia, LLC’s demurrer to the entire complaint is overruled.
Defendants to give notice.