Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 21STCV32594 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

On September 9, 2021, Plaintiff Fructuoso Alba filed this action against defendants Jin Mok (“Mok”) and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC (“Enterprise”) (erroneously sued as Alamo Rent a Car) arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on September 9, 2019. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence. The first cause of action is asserted against Enterprise.

On February 15, 2023, Enterprise filed this demurrer, arguing that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action against Enterprise because (1) the Complaint contains nothing more than conclusory statements against Enterprise, and (2) the Graves Amendment forecloses Plaintiff’s claims against Enterprise.

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.) “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. [Citation.]” (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].) Allegations are to be liberally construed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) In construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations. (Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769.) Further, Judicial Council forms are not immune to demurrer. (People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1486.)

A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Where the complaint contains substantial factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty will be overruled or plaintiff will be given leave to amend. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.)

“It is generally recognized that one who places or entrusts his [or her] motor vehicle in the hands of one whom he [or she] knows, or from the circumstances is charged with knowing, is incompetent or unfit to drive, may be held liable for an injury inflicted by the use made thereof by that driver.” (Osborn v. Hertz Corp. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 703, 708, quotations omitted.)

Enterprise requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) Enterprises Statement of Information dated February 19, 2020; (2) Enterprise’s Statement of Information dated August 23, 2021; and (3) the fact proposition that Enterprise is a rental company engaged in the business of motor vehicle rental and related service. The requests are GRANTED as to the Statements of Information. The Court takes judicial notice of the Statements of Information to the extent that the Statements of Information were filed with the California Secretary of State and not for the truth of the matters asserted therein. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h).) The request to take judicial notice of the fact proposition is denied.

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who has filed the pleading and shall file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) Counsel for Enterprise has not satisfied this requirement. (Declaration of Daniel J. Sullivan, ¶ 2.) However, a failure to comply with the requirement shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).)¿ Therefore, the Court considers the merits of Enterprise’s demurrer.[1]

The Complaint, set forth on Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-001, alleges as follows: “Plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle involved in this incident. The traffic light was green on Pacific Ave. so the driver of the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger proceeded northbound to approach Brooks Avenue. Defendant Jin Mok so negligently owned, operated, maintained, controlled, and or drove his motor vehicle so as to make a dangerous left turn out of an alley with no regard for oncoming traffic. Defendant did not yield before making the left turn, causing Defendant to crash and violently impact with Plaintiff in a T-bone collision. As a direct and proximate result of the violent impact caused thereby, plaintiff was severely injured in several different parts of his body. He suffered serious injury to his cervical spine, as well as to his left knee which required restorative surgery.” (Complaint, Second Cause of Action for Negligence.) The Complaint further provides that the defendant who owned and entrusted the motor vehicle which was operated with their permission was Enterprise (erroneously identified as Alamo Rent a Car). (Complaint, MV-2 (c), (d).)

Enterprise argues the demurrer should be sustained because Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege sufficient facts to state a claim against Enterprise. Specifically, Enterprise argues the Complaint does not allege any material facts to support the entrustment theory undergirding Plaintiff’s motor vehicle cause of action or the purported acts or omissions which comprise Plaintiff’s negligence cause of action.

A review of Plaintiff’s Complaint supports Enterprise’s argument. “Liability for the negligence of the incompetent driver to whom an automobile is entrusted does not arise out of the relationship of the parties, but from the act of entrustment of the motor vehicle, with permission to operate the same, to one whose incompetency, inexperience, or recklessness is known or should have been known to the owner.” (Osborn, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 709.) With respect to a claim for negligence, “where the pleaded facts of negligence and injury do not naturally give rise to an inference of causation the plaintiff must plead specific facts affording an inference the one caused the others. (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 154 Cal.3d 868, 901.)

Here, the Complaint sets forth conclusory allegations that Enterprise owned and entrusted the vehicle that Mok operated with Enterprise’s permission. (See Complaint, MV-2 (c), (d).) Missing from these allegations are any facts to show that Enterprise knew or should have known of Mok’s incompetency, inexperience, or recklessness, or any act or omission of Enterprise. Without such allegations, there is no clear inference of causation between Enterprise’s conduct and the alleged injury Plaintiff suffered.

The Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to put Enterprise on notice of the factual basis of Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the demurrer to the first cause of action based on failure to allege sufficient facts is sustained. Having so concluded, the Court does not address Enterprise’s other arguments.

Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve a First Amended Complaint within 30 days of this ruling.

Enterprise is ordered to file and serve their responsive pleading within 30 days of service of the First Amended Complaint.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Failure to meet and confer may result in the continuance of the hearing.