Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV04087, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04087    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     February 6, 2025                               TRIAL DATE:  November 3, 2025

CASE:                         Caiden Caldwell v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV04087

DEMURRER WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE

I.          INTRODUCTION

            This action arises from events at the Once Upon A Time in LA music festival (the Music Festival).  The Music Festival took place at the Banc of California Stadium (the Premises) on December 18, 2021. Hip hop recording artist Darrell Caldwell (AKA Drakeo the Ruler) (Decedent) and others were attacked while backstage at the Music Festival.  Decedent died as a result of his injuries.  Three cases—Case Nos. 22STCV04087, 22STCV06905, and 22STCV07737—were subsequently filed and consolidated in this department.

            On or about February 2, 2022, plaintiff Caiden Caldwell, a minor, as Successor-In Interest to the Estate of Darrell Caldwell p/k/a Drakeo The Ruler, through his guardian ad litem, filed the instant action (Case No. 22STCV04087).  On August 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), alleging causes of action for (1) Negligence-Wrongful Death CCP § 377.60; (2) Premises Liability-Wrongful Death; and (3) Negligent Hiring/Retention/Supervision Training-Wrongful Death against defendants Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. (Live Nation), C3 Presents LLC (C3), the University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles Football Club (LAFC) and CI Security Specialists, Inc. (CISS), among others. 

            On July 31, 2024, the court sustained Live Nation and C3’s demurrer to the FAC with leave to amend.

            On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed timely a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleging the same causes of action.

            On October 11, 2024, CISS filed this demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Premises Liability in the SAC.  The demurrer was scheduled for hearing on December 11, 2024.

            On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the hearing on the demurrer.  Plaintiff requested more time to file an opposition to the demurrer.

On December 10, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application.  Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the hearing was continued to February 6, 2025.

            The demurrer is still unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.¿ (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)¿ When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, accepting the alleged facts as true.¿ (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.)¿ “Because a demurrer challenges defects on the face of the complaint, it can only refer to matters outside the pleading that are subject to judicial notice.”¿ (Arce ex rel. Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 556.)¿¿¿  

III.       DISCUSSION

CISS raises three challenges to the Second Cause of Action for Premises Liability: (1) there are no factual allegations establishing CISS owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the Premises; (2) CISS had no legal duty to control the conduct of third parties; and (3) there is an absence of alleged prior similar incidents to give rise to foreseeability.  Because CISS’s first challenge is dispositive, the court does not address the remaining arguments.

To state a claim for premises liability, the plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property; (2) defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property; (3) plaintiff was harmed; and (4) defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. (CACI No. 1000.)  

Here, Plaintiff alleges that USC is the lessee of the master lease for the Premises (SAC, ¶ 15) and that USC subleased the Premises to LAFC who in turn subleased the Premises to Live Nation (SAC, ¶ 9, 16).  Absent from the SAC are any allegations showing CISS owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the Premises.  “A defendant cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property which it did not own, possess, or control.”  (Balard v. Bassman Event Sec., Inc. (1989) 210 Cal. App. 3d 243, 247, citing Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38 Cal.3d 112, 134.)  CISS’s demurrer is meritorious.  Plaintiff, having not filed an opposition, does not offer any argument or authority directing a different conclusion.

IV.       CONCLUSION

            Defendant CI Security Specialists, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action in the SAC is SUSTAINED.  Leave to amend is DENIED.

            Defendant is ordered to serve and file its Answer to the remaining causes of action in the SAC within 10 days of this order

Defendant to give notice. 

Dated:   February 6, 2025