Judge Jill Feeney, Case 22STCV10806 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 22STCV10806, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10806 Hearing Date: September 27, 2022 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

September 27, 2022

22STCV10806

Demurrer filed by Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser LLC and Rasier-CA, LLC

DECISION

The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the third cause of action for products liability.

Moving party is ordered to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice.

Background

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in October 2020. Plaintiff Avelardo Art Luna, Jr. filed his complaint against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, Rasier-DC, LLC, and Richard Olguin on March 29, 2022.

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on July 14, 2022 which added causes of action for negligent hiring retention and supervision and strict products liability.

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser LLC and Rasier-CA, LLC filed their demurrer on August 30, 2022.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Moving Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for strict products liability on the grounds that the FAC fails to plead facts constituting the cause of action. Specifically, Moving Defendants argue (1) the Uber application is not a “product,” (2) Defendants are service providers and do not manufacture, distribute, or sell “products,” (3) Plaintiff has not alleged that the Uber App suffers from a design defect, and (4) Plaintiff has not pled fact demonstrating proximate cause.

Opposing Arguments

Plaintiff argues that (1) Uber’s software is a product upon which a products liability claim can be based, (2)Uber’s services do not preclude a products liability claim, (3) the FAC sufficiently pled facts demonstrating a defect, and (4) the FAC sufficiently pled causation.

Reply Arguments

On reply, Moving Defendants reiterate the arguments from their motion.

Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 747.) The ultimate facts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403; see also Shields v. County of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 133 [stating, “[o]n demurrer, pleadings are read liberally, and allegations contained therein are assumed to be true”].)

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer and motion to strike, the demurring and moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to and sought to be stricken in person or by telephone for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the issues in argued in the demurrer and motion to strike. (See Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 430.41; 435.5.)

Here, Moving Defendants met and conferred with Plaintiff before filing their demurrer and the parties could not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in Moving Defendants’ demurrer. (Laddon Decl., ¶2.)

Discussion

A defendant “may be held strictly liable for its product if the plaintiff was injured while using the product in a reasonably foreseeable way. In order for there to be strict liability, the product does not have to be unreasonably dangerous—just defective. Products liability may be premised upon a theory of design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn.” (Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 990, 1000, internal quotations and citations omitted.) “Whether or not a produce was defectively designed or manufactured is a factual issues to be determined by the trier off fact. However, whether or not the subject object or instrumentality is a ‘product’ is a question of law for the trial court[.]” (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611.

Whether the Uber Application is a Product

Defendants assert that the Uber App is not a “product” because Defendants are service providers and the Uber App is incidental to the provision of Defendants’ intended services: facilitating rideshares.

As the Court of Appeal has explained,

“[t]he doctrine of strict liability in tort applies to producing and marketing enterprises responsible for placing products in the stream of commerce. Where purchase of a product is the primary objective or essence of the transaction, strict liability applies even to those who are mere conduits in distributing the product to the consumer. Courts have not extended the doctrine of strict liability to transactions whose primary objective is obtaining services. Courts have also declined to apply strict liability where the transaction’s service aspect predominates and any product sale is merely incidental to the provision of the service.”

(Pierson v. Sharp Memorial Hospital, Inc. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 344.)

Here, the FAC consistently alleges that Uber is a “common carrier who provided transportation services for individuals.” (FAC, ¶8, 19.) Moving Defendants “designed and/or distributed the UBER phone application and/or GPS interface/system that UBER drivers, including Olguin, were required to [use].” (FAC, ¶33.) Plaintiff alleges that, at the time of the incident, Defendant Olguin “was not adequately trained or supervised in his driving and/or use of the UBER phone application.” (FAC, ¶30.) Uber “required Richard Olguin, as a driver in the course and scope of his employment, to be active on the UBER phone application.” (FAC, ¶21.)

Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate that the primary objective of the transaction between Plaintiff and Defendants was to obtain rideshare services. Olguin performed services as a rideshare driver and incidentally required the application to provide rides to other application users. No sale is required to obtain the Uber application, the service aspect of the parties’ transaction predominates, and the use of the Uber application by Plaintiff and Defendant Olguin was merely incidental to the provision of Defendants’ service. The Court therefore concludes, as a matter of law, that the Uber application is not a “product” such that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for strict product liability.

Design Defect and Proximate Cause

Moving Defendants also argue that the FAC has not pled facts that show any defect with the Uber application was the proximate cause of his injuries.

Here, the FAC alleges Moving Defendants “failed to adequately train [Olguin] on how to use the UBER phone application and interface.” (FAC, ¶33.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges Olguin’s use of the application violated “one or more provisions of the California Vehicle Code.” (FAC, ¶35.) Plaintiff also alleges Defendant Olguin used “the UBER phone application in a manner which would distract him and lead to” Plaintiff’s injuries. (FAC, ¶30.)

Plaintiff’s allegations point to a lack of training, distraction, or Uber policies as the cause of his injuries. The FAC fails to allege any facts showing there was any defect with the Uber application or that any defect led to Plaintiff’s injuries.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s cause of action for products liability cannot survive Moving Defendants’ demurrer because the Uber application is not a product. Even if it was, the FAC fails to allege that there was any defect with the application or that the defect led to Plaintiff’s injuries.

Moving Defendants’ demurrer is sustained. Plaintiff has requested leave to amend without explaining how the issues raised here could be overcome. Therefore, leave to amend is denied.