Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01189, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01189    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      March 14, 2024                                               TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         MARISELA FERNANDEZ v. TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV01189

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Trader Joe’s Company

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed

SERVICE:                              Filed July 31, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendant demurrers to Plaintiff’s complaint.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Marisela Fernandez’s claim that she suffered injuries as a result of a trip and fall incident that occurred on October 13, 2021, at a Trader Joe’s store located at 3035 E. Huntington Dr. Pasadena 91107. Plaintiff filed this complaint on May 25, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

LEGAL STANDARD

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.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant demurrers to Plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that Plaintiff fails to plead factual allegations sufficient to state a claim.

“The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages.” (Melton v. Boustred (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 521, 529.) “The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.” (McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) 

In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she feel “as a result of dangerous conditions on Defendants’ property”. (Complaint at p. 4.) Later she again alleges that she was “injured as a result of dangerous conditions”. (Complaint at p. 5.) She also alleges she “sustained serious injuries and incurred damages as a direct result of the negligence of Defendants in maintaining, inspecting, repairing, managing, supervising, controlling, and/or operating the premises located at 3035 E. Huntington Dr., Pasadena 91107; including but not limited to fixtures and appliances, entrance and exit ways, surrounding parking lots and alleys, aisles, floors, stairs, steps, gates and any other surfaces and areas upon which individuals may move about negligently hiring, training, supervising, controlling, and/or monitoring employees and agents responsible for the maintenance, inspections, repairing, supervision, control, and operations; failing to provide a safe, suitable, and adequate premises for individuals using said premises.”

“As against a general demurrer, plaintiff need only plead facts which, liberally interpreted, disclose that he is entitled to some relief.” (Cameron v. Wernick (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 890, 892.) “ ‘[T]he complaint ordinarily is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts.’ [Citation.] ‘However, distinguishing “ ‘[u]ltimate facts’ ” from “evidentiary” facts and “ ‘legal conclusion[s]’ ” can be difficult.’ ” (Thomas v. Regents of University of California (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 587, 641.)

“Material facts alleged in the complaint are treated as true for the purpose ruling on the demurrer. [Citation.] Also taken as true are facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. [Citation.] However, contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint are not considered in judging its sufficiency.” (Kisesky v. Carpenters’ Trust for So. California. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d, 228.)

            Here, Plaintiff’s statements that she fell was a result of dangerous conditions are neither evidentiary nor ultimate facts but statements of legal conclusion. Plaintiff’s long list of possible ways Defendant failed to maintain various aspects of the premises fails to remedy her deficient pleading. Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendant breached a duty owed to her. Thus, her first two causes of action fail to state a claim.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   March 14, 2024                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court