Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

ANABELLA DARY MENDOZA,

Plaintiff,

CRYSTAL MARIE NAVARRETTE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23BBCV01304

Hearing Date: March 1, 2024

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEMURRER

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiff Anabella Dary Mendoza (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint alleging a single cause of action for motor vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that on June 10, 2021, she was involved in a motor vehicle accident with Defendant Crystal Marie Navarrette (“Navarrette”) who was operating the other vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Vanessa Riegert, EAN Holdings, LLC (“EAN”), and Enterprise Rent-A-Car (“Enterprise”) employed Navarrette who operated the motor vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that Riegert, EAN, and Enterprise entrusted the motor vehicle to Navarrette.

On November 6, 2023, Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car was dismissed without prejudice.

B. Demurrer on Calendar

On January 2, 2024, Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC (“EAN”) filed a demurrer to the complaint.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief. On February 23, 2024, EAN filed a notice of non-opposition, stating that it was not in receipt of an opposition brief from Plaintiff.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

With the demurrer papers, EAN requests judicial notice of: (1) the Statement of Information for EAN; (2) the statement of information for Enterprise); (3) that EAN is in the business of renting/leasing vehicles as stated in the Statement of Information; (4) that Enterprise is in the business of renting/leasing vehicles as stated in the Statement of Information; (5)-(6) EAN are Enterprise are in the business of renting/leasing vehicles; and (7) EAN and Enterprise are affiliated. The Court will take judicial notice of request numbers 1 and 2 as they are documents filed with the California Secretary of State, but declines to take judicial notice of the truths of the matters stated therein. The remainder of the request is denied.

DISCUSSION

EAN demurs to the sole cause of action in the complaint, arguing that it does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against it because the allegations are conclusory and, under federal law, a rental care company and its affiliates cannot be held vicariously liable for negligent acts of its customers.

“A rental car company may be held liable for negligently entrusting one of its cars to a customer. [Citations.] In determining whether defendant was negligent in entrusting its car to [the defendant driver], defendant's conduct is to be measured by what an ordinarily prudent person would do in similar circumstances….” (Osborn v. Hertz Corp. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 703, 709 [citations omitted] [citing examples such as entrusting a vehicle to an unlicensed or intoxicated driver].) “Under the theory of 'negligent entrustment,' liability is imposed on vehicle owner or permitter because of his [or her] own independent negligence and not the negligence of the driver, in the event plaintiff can prove that the injury or death resulting therefrom was proximately caused by the driver's incompetency.” (Id.) The Osborn court stated:

“In general, the issue of a defendant's negligence presents a question of fact for the jury. [Citations.] A defendant's negligence may be determined as a matter of law only if reasonable jurors following the law could draw only one conclusion from the evidence presented. [Citation.]” [Citation.] However, in an appropriate case, a defendant's lack of negligence may be determined as a matter of law. [Citation.] This is such a case. Defendant was not negligent for entrusting a car to a person lawfully qualified and apparently fit to rent and drive it. The trial court properly entered summary judgment for defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

(Id. at 712-713.)

49 U.S.C. § 30106(a) states:

(a) In general.--An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if--

(1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and

(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner).

(49 U.S.C. § 30106(a).)

EAN argues that the complaint alleges that EAN entrusted the vehicle to Navarrette and thus is subject to this limitation of liability. The complaint lacks supporting facts as it is alleged by way of the form pleading on the PLD-PI-001 form. At most, the complaint alleges that Riegert, EAN, and Enterprise employed Navarrette and permitted her to use the vehicle, which was involved in the subject motor vehicle accident with Plaintiff. EAN argues that the allegations are devoid of facts showing how the subject vehicle was entrusted to Navarrette and how this entrustment caused the accident.

According to the Statement of Information for EAN, EAN’s business type is listed as “MOTOR VEHICLE RENTAL AND RELATED SERVICE.” However, at this time, the Court is not aware, based on the allegations of the complaint, whether EAN was negligent in entrusting one of its rental cars to Navarrette or the car was provided to Navarrette by some other means to EAN (such as if Navarrette was EAN’s employee, etc.). The Court will not make a factual determination at this time that EAN was not negligent, as there also may be undisclosed facts that Navarrette did not carry a license or was intoxicated at the time of the rental. While such facts are not currently alleged, the Court will allow Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint against EAN to determine whether facts exist to impose liability against EAN as a rental car business.

The demurrer to the complaint is sustained with leave to amend. Prior to amendment, Plaintiff should consider whether EAN is a proper defendant in this action if it is being sued only in its capacity as a rental car business.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC’s demurrer to the complaint is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.