Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV00675, Date: 2024-09-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24NNCV00675 Hearing Date: September 20, 2024 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
edward
gurevich, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. steven
schneiderman., Defendant. |
Case No.: 24NNCV00675 Hearing Date: September 20, 2024 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: demurrer |
NOTICE:
The
Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter. The Court is guided by California Rules of
Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested. Unless the Court directs argument in the
Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument
should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day
before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue. The tentative ruling will become the ruling
of the court if no argument is received.
Notice may be
given either by email at BurDeptB@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818)
260-8422.
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations
Plaintiffs Edward Gurevich, Zoya Gurevich,
and Irina Siegel (“Plaintiffs”) allege that they were involved in a motor
vehicle collision with Defendant Steven Schneiderman (“Defendant”) on February
15, 2023 near Riverside Dr and Coldwater Canyon Avenue in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Gurevich was
driving with passengers Ms. Gurevich and Ms. Siegel towards an intersection,
when Defendant turned into an adjacent lane attempting to veer around vehicles
that were stopped for a red traffic signal and struck Plaintiffs’ vehicle.
The complaint, filed April 2, 2024,
alleges causes of action for: (1) general negligence; and (2) motor vehicle.
B.
Cross-Complaint
On May 9, 2024, Mr. Schneiderman filed a
cross-complaint against Mr. Gurevich for: (1) indemnification; (2) declaratory
relief; and (3) apportionment of fault.
C.
Motion on Calendar
On August 15, 2024,
Mr. Gurevich filed a demurrer to the cross-complaint.
On September 5,
2024, Mr. Schneiderman filed an opposition brief.
On September 11,
2024, Mr. Gurevich filed a reply brief.
Mr. Gurevich demurs to the 1st, 2nd,
and 3rd causes of action in the cross-complaint. Mr. Gurevich argues that the cross-complaint is
vague and “[e]ach of the three alleged causes of action in
defendant/cross-complainant’s cross-complaint fail to indicate, with any level
of specificity, the specific individuals’ damages the cross-complainant is seeking
relief from. [¶] Said differently, the cross-complaint is vague and ambiguously
written as it fails to indicate that Edward Gurevich’s [sic] cross-complaint
against Edward Gurevich seeks indemnification, declaratory relief and
apportionment of fault with regard to plaintiffs’ [sic] Zoya Gurevich and Irina
Siegal’s damages.” (Dem. at
3:11-16.) Mr. Gurevich argues that the
cross-complaint refers to “[cross-]defendants” generally, but fails to state
that Mr. Schneiderman is seeking relief from Mr. Gurevich for damages claimed
by Ms. Zurevich and Ms. Siegal. Other
than a recitation of the law on demurrers and counsel’s meet and confer
efforts, there are no further arguments raised in the demurrer.
In the 1st cause of
action for indemnity, Cross-Complainant Mr. Schneiderman seeks indemnity
against Cross-Defendant Mr. Zurevich in the event that Mr. Schneiderman is
found responsible to “Plaintiff, or to anyone else, as a result of the
incidents and occurrences described in Plaintiff’s complaint….” (XC, ¶6.)
In the 2nd cause of action for declaratory relief, Mr. Schneiderman
seeks declaratory relief in the form a judicial determination regarding the
percentage of fault between Mr. Schneiderman and each Cross-Defendant (Mr.
Gurevich and Roes 1-25) for the damages suffered by the “Plaintiff.” (Id., ¶¶8-9.) In the 3rd cause of action for
apportionment of fault, Mr. Schneiderman alleges that if he is found liable to
“Plaintiff, each Cross-Defendant should be required to pay a share of
Plaintiff’s judgment which is in proportion to the comparative negligence of
that Cross-Defendant….” (Id.,
¶10.)
The cross-complaint is not so vague
that Mr. Gurevich is unable to respond, particularly as these causes of action
are generally raised a cross-complaint, and such claims are typically based on
the outcome of the underlying complaint.
However, the Court recognizes that the cross-complaint is vague as to
which Plaintiff or Plaintiffs is responsible for the action. Cross-Complainant uses the singular term
“Plaintiff” without indicating which one.
Thus, the Court will sustain the
demurrer to the cross-complaint so that Mr. Schneiderman can clarify and
identify which of the three Plaintiffs are subject to the cross-complaint (or
to allege that all three are subject to the cross-complaint), as well as
properly refer to Plaintiff/Plaintiffs in the plural or singular form. This is
a relatively simple issue to fix and the only ground upon which Mr. Gurevich
has demurred.
CONCLUSION AND
ORDER
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
Edward Gurevich’s demurrer to the cross-complaint is sustained with 20 days
leave to amend.
Cross-Defendant shall
provide notice of this order.
DATED: September 20, 2024 ___________________________
F.M.
TAVELMAN, Judge
Superior
Court of California
County
of Los Angeles