Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00651, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV00651 Hearing Date: May 2, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: May
2, 2023 TRIAL DATE: January 30, 2024
CASE: ROBERT VILLA, an
individual; KATY VILLA, an individual, v. ADVANCED NUTRIENTS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; ADVANCED NUTRIENTS US LLC, a Washington limited liability company;
ADVANCED NUTRIENT SOLUTIONS NW, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; ADVANCED
NUTRIENTS LTD., a Canadian corporation; UNITED ELECTRIC WHOLESALE & TRADING
INC. dba UNITED HYDRO & GARDENING SUPPLY, a California corporation; STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, a government entity; and DOES 1-100, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 22AHCV00651
DEMURRER
WITH MOTION TO STRIKE
DEMURRING PARTIES: Defendants Advanced
Nutrients US LLC, Advanced Nutrients LTD, and United Electric Wholesale &
Trading Inc. (“Demurring Parties”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs
Robert Villa and Katy Villa
SERVICE: Filed on February 8, 2023, and February
22, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed April 19, 2023
REPLY: Filed April 26, 2023, and April 27, 2023
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Demurring Parties
demurrer to Plaintiffs’ first, second, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh causes
of action.
Demurring Parties move
to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ FAC.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiffs Robert
Villa and Katy Villa (“Plaintiffs”) claim that on September 7, 2021, Robert
Villa was in a single-vehicle accident. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of
the accident, pH Up, spilled onto Robert Villa, causing chemical burns,
disfigurement, and blindness.
Plaintiffs
filed a first amended complaint on January 19, 2023, alleging seven causes of
action for (1) strict product liability, (2) negligence, (3) failure to warn,
(4) negligent recall, (5) dangerous condition of public property, (6) loss of
consortium, and (7) violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
TENTATIVE RULING
Demurring
Parties’ demurrers are OVERRULED.
Advanced
Nutrient Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages
is GRANTED with leave to amend.
United’s
motion to strike is DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
Demurrer
A general
demurrer may be taken to a complaint where “[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the
complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn
v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) In a demurrer proceeding, the
defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial
notice. (Code Civ. Proc. section
430.30(a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or
other extrinsic matters. (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 v.
Mirda, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)
Additionally, a
special demurrer to a complaint may be brought on the ground the pleading is
uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. Code Civ. Proc section 430.10(f); Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of
San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180, 1191.) A demurrer based
on uncertainty is disfavored and will be strictly construed even when the
pleading is uncertain in some respects. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14
Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrers based on uncertainty are “granted only if
the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably
respond.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208
Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)
Motion to Strike
Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading
may serve and file a notice of motion to strike a pleading or any part
thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) The
court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms
it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in
any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The court may
also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity
with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one
that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither
pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a
demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the
complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., 431.10, subd. (b).) The grounds for
moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial
notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)
DISCUSSION
There are two demurrers at issue. The first demurrer was filed by
Defendant United Electric Wholesale & Trading Inc. (“United”). The second
demurrer was filed by Defendants Advanced Nutrients US LLC and Advanced Nutrients
LTD (“Advanced Nutrients Defendants”). Although separately filed, the two
demurrers similarly object to Plaintiff’s first, second, third, fourth, sixth,
and seventh causes of action.
First
Cause of Action for Strict Products Liability
Demurring
Parties object to Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for strict products
liability.
“A products
liability case may rest on either a theory of strict liability or negligence.
[Citation.] In either case, the plaintiff must prove that a defect in the
product caused injury. [Citation.] In asserting a claim for negligence, the
plaintiff must prove the defect in the product was due to the defendant's
negligence. [Citation.] Generally, recovery is permitted for three kinds of
defects: manufacturing defects, design defects, and warning
defects. [Citation.]” (Brady v. Calsol, Inc. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th
1212, 1218.)
The
California Supreme Court “established the doctrine of strict products liability
when it held ‘[a] manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he
places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for
defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.’ ” (Loomis
v. Amazon.com LLC (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 466, 475.)
Demurring
Parties argue that Plaintiffs’ allegations are conclusory and fail to state a
claim for products liability. Plaintiffs’ FAC alleges that pH Up is a high
concentration soluble lye. (FAC ¶ 21.) Plaintiffs allege that pH Up’s packaging is inadequate
because it lacks a secondary seal. (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiffs also allege
that the cap was defective and weak for foreseeable uses. (Ibid.)
Plaintiffs also allege that the container and cap are inadequate for the
transportation of pH Up. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs also allege that Demurring
Parties designed, manufactured, distributed, or sold the container in a way that
would fail due to foreseeable use. (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiffs’ allegations here are
sufficient to allege a claim for strict products liability against Demurring
Parties.
United also argues that Plaintiffs fail to allege whether
United was a manufacturer or seller of the pH Up. However, Plaintiffs allege
that Robert Villa purchased the pH Up from United. (FAC ¶ 2.)
Demurring Parties’ demurrers to Plaintiffs’ first cause of
action are overruled.
Second
Cause of Action for Negligence
Demurring Parties
object to Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for negligence.
“The elements of any negligence
cause of action are duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages.” (Peredia
v. HR Mobile Services, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.)
Demurring Parties
summarily assert that Plaintiffs fail to allege facts sufficient to establish
they acted negligently. However, Plaintiffs allege that Demurring Parties negligently
manufactured and sold pH Up with defective packaging. (Id. ¶¶ 22-24.) Demurring Parties’ demurrers to Plaintiffs’ second
cause of action are overruled.
Third Cause of Action for Failure to Warn
“[T]o prove negligent
failure to warn under California law, a plaintiff must show ‘that a
manufacturer ... did not warn of a particular risk for reasons which fell below
the acceptable standard of care, i.e., what a reasonably prudent manufacturer
would have known and warned about.’ ” (Pilliod v. Monsanto Company (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 591, 615.)
Plaintiffs allege
that Demurring Parties failed to warn Robert Villa of the dangers of pH Up and
its allegedly defective container. (Id. ¶ 26.) Plaintiffs further allege that Demurring
Parties had received similar complaints of the defects present in pH Up
containers but failed to warn Plaintiffs of the dangers. (Id. ¶ 27-30.)
Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to plead a cause of action for negligent
failure to warn.
Demurring Parties’ demurrers to Plaintiff’s third cause
of action are overruled.
Fourth Cause of Action Negligent Recall
“Failure to
conduct an adequate retrofit campaign may constitute negligence apart from the issue
of defective design.” (Hernandez v.
Badger Construction Equipment Co. (1994)
28 Cal.App.4th 1791, 1827.)
Although
both demurrers notice an object to Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action,
Demurring Parties fail to adequately address their basis for their objection.
Advanced Nutrient Defendants fail to cite any authority to provide the basis
that Plaintiffs’ claims are insufficient, and United fails to address the
fourth cause of action in the body of its motion at all.
Demurring
Parties’ demurrers to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action are overruled.
Sixth Cause of Action for Loss of Consortium
To establish a claim for loss of consortium, a plaintiff must
establish: “ ‘(1) a valid and lawful marriage between the plaintiff and the
person injured at the time of the injury; [¶] (2) a tortious injury to the
plaintiff's spouse; [¶] (3) loss of consortium suffered by the plaintiff; and
[¶] (4) the loss was proximately caused by the defendant's act.’ ” (LeFiell
Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court (2012) 55 Cal.4th 275, 284-85.)
Plaintiffs
allege that Katy Villa was lawfully married to Robert Villa. (FAC ¶ 51.) Plaintiffs allege various claims for tortious
injuries to Robert Villa based on the allegedly defective pH Up container. (Id.
¶ 21-32.) Plaintiffs also allege a loss of consortium proximately caused by
Demurring Parties’ act. (Id. ¶ 52.) Plaintiffs have alleged facts
sufficient to allege a cause of action for loss of consortium.
Demurring Parties’ demurrers to Plaintiffs’ sixth cause
of action are overruled.
Seventh Cause of Action for violation of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act
“The CLRA declares unlawful a variety of ‘unfair
methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices’ used in the
sale or lease of goods or services to a consumer. (Civ.Code, § 1770, subd. (a).)
An individual seeking to recover damages under the CLRA based on a
misrepresentation must prove, among other things, actual injury. ‘Relief
under the CLRA is specifically limited to those who suffer damage, making
causation a necessary element of proof.’ ” (Bower v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (2011)
196 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1556.)
Plaintiffs
allege that Demurring Parties made various false representations about the
safety and reliability of pH Up. (FAC ¶¶ 25-26; 53-56.) Plaintiffs also allege causation and damages. (Id.
¶ 27.)
Demurring Parties’ demurrers to
Plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action are overruled.
Motion
to Strike
Demurring
Parties also separately move to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ FAC.
Advanced
Nutrient Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages.
Punitive
damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that
the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ.
Code, § 3294, subd. (a). A plaintiff seeking punitive damages “must include specific
factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive,
fraudulent, or malicious to support a claim for punitive damages. [Citation.]
Punitive damages may not be pleaded generally.” (Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th
1137, 1193.)
Plaintiffs’
FAC do not allege any facts that Advanced Nutrient Defendants’ acted with
oppression, fraud, or malice necessary to support a prayer for punitive
damages. Plaintiffs’ allegations are conclusory and therefore fail.
Advanced
Nutrient Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages
is granted.
Demurring
Parties move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for attorney’s fees.
“ ‘A party
may not recover attorney fees unless expressly authorized by statute or
contract.’ ” (Hom v. Petrou (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 459, 464.) Civil Code
section 1780, subdivision (e), provides: “The court shall award court costs and
attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff in litigation filed pursuant to this
section. Reasonable attorney's fees may be awarded to a prevailing defendant
upon a finding by the court that the plaintiff's prosecution of the action was
not in good faith.”
Plaintiffs’
prayer for attorney’s fees has a statutory basis, and thus, Demurring Parties’
motion to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for attorney’s fees is denied.
CONCLUSION
Demurring
Parties’ demurrers are OVERRULED.
Advanced
Nutrient Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages
is GRANTED with 20 days leave to amend.
United’s
motion to strike is DENIED.
Moving Parties
to give notice.
Dated: May 2, 2023 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court
indicating their
intention to submit.
Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely. alhdeptx@lacourt.org