Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV25145, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25145    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 27

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

ERIK HANSEN        

 

            Plaintiff(s),

 

            vs.

 

THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, AABLE SECURITY, and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,

 

                        Defendant(s).                          

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 22STCV25145

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER

 

Dept.: 27

1:30pm

February 7, 2023

 

DEMURRER

I.          BACKGROUND

             On August 4, 2022, Erik Hansen (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against The Southland Corporation, Aable Security, and Does 1 to 25 (collectively, “Defendants”). On August 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint to correct a defendant’s name to 7-Eleven Inc. (See Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)). Plaintiff asserted three causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) premises liability, and (3) intentional tort based upon the below allegations (See Complaint p. 4, 5, and 6 respectively).

            Plaintiff alleges that on October 19, 2019, plaintiff was at a 7-11 store located at 7040 Sunset Boulevard, #A, Los Angeles, California when he “asked the clerk on duty to check one 20 dollar bill out of the five or six 20 dollar bills in his possession” to see if the bill was fake (See Complaint, p. 4). As a result of this interaction, a security guard “completely misunderstood and mishandled the situation” and forcibly assaulted and battered Plaintiff to the ground (Ibid.). The police were called and after an investigation discovered that no crime had been committed and Plaintiff was released without arrest (Ibid.). Plaintiff alleges that he suffered both physical and psychological injuries.

            On January 4, Defendants filed the instant demurrer.

            No opposition has been filed.

           

II.        LEGAL STANDARD OF A DEMURRER

The party against whom a complaint is filed may demur the pleading on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

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. (Wilson v. Transit Authority of City of Sacramento (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21.)

In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not on the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Ibid.) However, it does not accept as true deductions, contentions, or conclusions of law or fact. (Stonehouse Homes LLC v. City of Sierra Madre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531, 538.)

 

III.       DISCUSSION

            A. Meet and Confer

            The Court finds that Defendants complied with the meet and confer requirement. (See Demurrer, Exhibit 2).

            B. Statute of Limitations

            Here, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff is seeking damages based on personal injuries sustained during the October 19, 2019, incident. However, actions for personal injuries are subject to the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. The California Judicial Council enacted an extension during the COVID-19 pandemic, this extension tolled the statute of limitations from April 6, 2020, to October 1, 2020. (See Judicial Council of California’s Rules of Court, Appendix I (Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19), Emergency Rule 9 (as amended), attached as Exhibit “6.”) However, Plaintiff’s time began running on October 19, 2019. The extension would have tolled and extended the deadline to April 15, 2022. Accordingly, the statute of limitations for the Plaintiff ran on April 15, 2022, and Plaintiff’s complaint was not filed until August 4, 2022. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims are barred.

 

IV.       CONCLUSION

The demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

 

DATED: February 7, 2023 

 

 

                                                                         ___________________________

                                                                              Hon. Kerry Bensinger

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court