Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 21STCV37242, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling

CASE: Hughy Addison v. City of Santa Monica Risk Management Liability Claims Unit, et al.

On October 8, 2021, Plaintiff, Hughy Addison, filed a form complaint in pro per against Defendant, City of Santa Monica (erroneously sued and served as “City of Santa Monica Risk Management Liability Claims Unit” and “City of Santa Monica Bus Company”) for motor vehicle negligence. The allegations are sparse and handwritten. From what the Court can discern, Plaintiff suffered an injury while on Defendant’s bus. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.

On July 24, 2023, Defendant filed a Declaration of Demurring Party in Support of Automatic Extension.

On August 24, 2023, Defendant filed this Demurrer and Motion to Strike punitive damages from the Complaint.

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.) 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.)

Defense counsel has complied with the meet and confer requirement.¿ (See Declaration of Robert A. Baggs.)

The elements of a “Motor Vehicle” cause of action are the same as a cause of action for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.

Defendant argues the demurrer should be sustained for two reasons. First, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not make clear whether he has complied with the applicable claims statute. Under Government Code section 911.2, subdivision (a), a claim relating to a cause of action for injury to person or to personal property shall be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Here, Plaintiff selects Item 9 of the form Complaint to indicate he is required to comply with a claims statute but fails to indicate whether he has complied, or is excused from complying, with applicable claims statutes. (Complaint, p. 2.)

Second, common law causes of action such as motor vehicle negligence cannot be asserted against a public entity. “Under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), there is no common law tort liability for public entities in California; instead, such liability must be based on statute.” (Guzman v. County of Monterey¿(2009) 46 Cal.4th 887, 897.) Here, the Complaint is devoid of allegations showing a statutory basis for Plaintiff’s claim.

Plaintiff Hughy Addison is ordered to serve and file a First Amended Complaint within 20 days of this order.

Defendant City of Santa Monica is ordered to serve and file its 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.

[1] A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54, subd. (c).)