Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV02612, Date: 2024-10-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23BBCV02612 Hearing Date: October 4, 2024 Dept: NCB
North Central District
JOSE GUZMAN JR, INCOMPETENT PERSON BY AND THROUGH HIS GAL, MARIA CARMEN GUZMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. HAYK TARKHANYAN, et al.,
Defendants. |
Case No.: 23BBCV02612
Hearing Date: October 4, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER; MOTION TO STRIKE |
BACKGROUND
A. Allegations
Plaintiffs Jose Guzman Jr., incompetent person by and through his GAL Maria Carmen Guzman; Maria Carmen Guzman; Jose Guzman, Sr.; and Tony Pineda (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that on November 21, 2021, Defendant Hayk Tarkhanyan (“Tarkhanyan”) discharged a firearm and shot Jose Guzman, Jr. and Tony Pineda, while they were on the premises at 7314-7318 Laurel Canyon Blvd., North Hollywood, CA 91605. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Yourcellparts.com (“YCP”), Aeonz Electronics (“Aeonz”), and El Canyon Industrial Park, LLC (“El Canyon”) owned, leased, managed, controlled, and/or operated the premises and intentionally allowed a dangerous condition to exist.
The complaint, filed on November 6, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) general negligence; (2) intentional tort; and (3) premises liability.
B. Cross-Complaint
On August 29, 2024, Defendant/Cross-Complainant El Canyon Industrial Park, LLC filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant Yourcellparts.com and Roes 1-20 for: (1) indemnity; and (2) contribution.
C. Motions on Calendar
On August 27, 2024, Defendants Tarkhanyan, YCP, and Aeonz filed a demurrer and motion to strike portions of the complaint.
The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.
DEMURRER
Defendants Tarkhanyan, YCP, and Aeonz demur to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd causes of action in the complaint, arguing they fail to state sufficient facts and are uncertain.
A. Plaintiffs Maria Carmen Guzman and Jose Guzman, Sr.
Defendants demur to the complaint generally, arguing that the complaint fails to allege any facts regarding Plaintiffs Maria Carmen Guzman and Jose Guzman, Sr.
The complaint alleges facts that Plaintiffs Jose Guzman, Jr. and Tony Pineda were shot, but the complaint fails to allege facts regarding what duties were owed to Plaintiffs Maria Carmen Guzman and Jose Guzman, Sr., how such duties were breached, and how Plaintiffs Maria Carmen Guzman and Jose Guzman, Sr. were injured.
As there are no facts alleged on behalf of Plaintiffs Maria Carmen Guzman and Jose Guzman, Sr., the demurrer is sustained as to these Plaintiffs. As this is the first attempt at the pleading, the Court will allow Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the complaint to add facts regarding Plaintiffs Maria Carmen Guzman and Jose Guzman, Sr.’s involvement (if any) in the subject incident.
B. 1st cause of action for General Negligence and 3rd cause of action for Premises Liability
The elements of a negligence cause of action are “duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages.” (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 892.)
The elements of a premises liability claim and negligence claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158.) Because a landowner is not the insurer of a visitor’s safety, the owner’s actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition is key to establishing liability. (Hall v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1134, 1139.) Ordinarily, where there is a dangerous condition on the business proprietor’s property, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition for a sufficient time to remedy or warn of the danger. (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205-07.) “[A] duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of a third party will be imposed only where such conduct can be reasonably anticipated.” (Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138, 1146.)
In the 1st cause of action for negligence, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants owed a duty under Civil Code, § 1714 of ordinary care or skill and that Defendants breached that duty by negligently hiring, training, supervising, and retaining Tarkhanyan. (Compl. at PLD-PI-001(2).) Plaintiffs allege that Tarkhanyan failed to use ordinary care when he shot and severely injured Plaintiffs Jose Guzman, Jr. and Tony Pineda, and that Defendants failed to use ordinary care in their ownership, operation, control, and/or maintenance of their property/businesses. (Id.)
In the 3rd cause of action for premises liability, Plaintiffs allege that the subject incident occurred at 7314-7318 Laurel Canyon Blvd., North Hollywood, CA 91605, which is owned, leased, managed, controlled, and/or operated by YCP, Aeonz, and El Canyon. (Compl. at PLD-PI-001(4).) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants negligently operated and maintained their property and knowingly and intentionally allowed dangerous conditions to exist thereon.
With respect to the negligence cause of action, the complaint fails to allege facts regarding the relationship between Tarkhanyan and YCP, Aeonz, and El Canyon. The negligence cause of action is based in part on allegations that Defendants negligently hired, trained, supervised, and retained Tarkhanyan. However, there are no allegations that YCP, Aeonz, and/or El Canyon were employers of Tarkhanyan or that they were aware of any particular risk or hazard created by Tarkhanyan.
With respect to the premises liability cause of action, Plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing that Tarkhanyan’s third-party criminal actions were reasonably foreseeable. To the extent that there was a prior existing relationship between Tarkhanyan and YCP, Aeonz, and El Canyon, Plaintiffs have not alleged whether they were aware of any criminal history or violent conduct on the part of Tarkhanyan.
For these reasons, the demurrer to the 1st and 3rd causes of action is sustained with leave to amend.
C. 2nd cause of action for Intentional Tort
Defendants demur to the 2nd cause of action, arguing that “intentional tort” is not a valid cause of action.
In the 2nd cause of action for intentional tort, Plaintiffs allege that on November 21, 2021, “Defendant Hayk Tarkhanyan willfully, recklessly, inappropriately and maliciously discharged a firearm and shot Plaintiffs Jose Guzman, Jr. and Tony Pineda with the intent to harm or kill Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs were in fact shot by Tarkhanyan and suffered severe injury and damages.” (Compl. at PLD-PI-001(3).)
“If the complaint states a cause of action under any theory, regardless of the title under which the factual basis for relief is stated, that aspect of the complaint is good against a demurrer.” (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38.) At this time, the allegations of the 2nd cause of action do not state what particular cause of action Plaintiffs are attempting to allege. For example, if they are attempting to allege a battery cause of action, they should clearly state so in the heading of the 2nd cause of action, as well as allege facts supporting each element of a battery cause of action. As currently worded, the allegations of the 2nd cause of action are insufficient to state a cause of action against Defendants.
The demurrer to the 2nd cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.
MOTION TO STRIKE
Defendants move to strike the references to exemplary and/or punitive damages from the complaint at page 2.
In light of the ruling on the demurrer, the motion to strike is taken off-calendar as moot.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Defendant Hayk Tarkhanyan, Yourcellparts.com, and Aeonz Electronics’ demurrer to the complaint is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.
In light of the ruling on the demurrer, Defendants’ motion to strike is taken off-calendar as moot.
Defendants shall provide notice of this order.