Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC05018, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC05018    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, February 22, 2024

Case Name:                             JUDITH GUERRA; and GLORIA GUERRA v. UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY; AFNI; and AAA INSURANCE

Case No.:                                23STLC05018

Motion:                                   Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

Moving Party:                         Defendant United Financial Casualty Company

Responding Party:                   Unopposed  

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Defendant United Financial Casualty Company’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.  

Counsel for Defendant United Financial Casualty Company is ordered to electronically

submit a proposed form of Judgment of Dismissal within 10-days from this Court’s order.  

BACKGROUND

On August 10, 2023, Plaintiffs Judith Guerra and Gloria Guerra (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants United Financial Casualty Company (“United”), AFNI, and AAA Insurance (“AAA”) (collectively “Defendants”). The complaint is set forth on a Form PLD-PI-001 and checks a cause of action for “Motor Vehicle” as a cause of action.

On November 30, 2023, the Court sustained the demurrer of Defendant United to the complaint with 20 days leave to amend.

On December 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging negligence and motor vehicle damages. The FAC is set forth on pleading paper and contains no captioned causes of action. Plaintiffs are self-represented.

On January 9, 2024, Defendant United filed and served the instant demurrer to the FAC on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Defendant United demurs to the FAC on the grounds that Plaintiffs cannot maintain a negligence cause of action. Defendant United asserts that “[t]he FAC confirms that [Defendant United] was the Silva’s insurance carrier—not the insurance carrier for Plaintiffs. As [Defendant United] does not owe any duties to random third parties that it does insured [sic], the FAC confirms that Plaintiffs cannot maintain their negligence claim against [Defendant United].” (Motion at p. 5:26-6:2.)  

OPPOSITION

            None as of February 16, 2024.  

REPLY

            None as of February 16, 2024.

ANALYSIS

I.          Demurrer

A.                Meet and Confer Requirement

Prior to filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41.) An insufficient meet and confer process is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(4).)

            Counsel for Defendant United, Kenny C. Brooks (“Brooks”), declares that he attempted to reach Plaintiffs via telephone to meet and confer regarding the instant demurrer. (Brooks Decl., ¶ 2.) Counsel was unable to reach Plaintiffs at the phone number listed on the caption of the FAC. (Id.) The Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has not been met. However, the Court will still assess the merits of the demurrer. The Court reminds the parties of the need to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.

B.        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. 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. In assessing a demurrer, the court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318. “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” Hahn v. Mirda, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.  A complaint will be upheld against a demurrer if it pleads facts sufficient to place the defendant on notice of the issues sufficient to enable the defendant to prepare a defense.  Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 549-50. “Generally it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349. A “[p]laintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.” Ibid.

1.         Negligence Cause of Action   

“To succeed in a negligence action, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty, (2) the defendant breached the duty, and (3) the breach proximately or legally caused (4) the plaintiff’s damages or injuries.” Thomas v. Stenberg (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 654, 662.

The FAC alleges that, on May 6, 2023, Plaintiff Judith Guerra was involved in an automobile accident with William Silva (“Silva”), who is a client of Defendant United. (FAC, p. 1:17-19.) The FAC then sets forth the details of the accident. (Id., p. 1:21-2:15.) Plaintiffs allege that after the accident, the parties filed their claims and that is when Plaintiffs allege that they realized that AAA negligently sold Plaintiff Gloria Guerra an insurance policy. (Id., p. 2:15-3:5.)

The FAC then alleges a conversation with Progressive concerning AAA concluding that Plaintiffs were at fault for the accident. (FAC, p. 3:6-14.) Plaintiffs allege that “Progressive insurance is the company that represented the other party in the accident but we received a letter from AFNI, a subrogation company stating they were contacting us on behalf of [Defendant] United . . . where they wanted to collect the amount of $11,036.57 from us because we were held liable for the payments they had made.” (Id., p. 3:15-18.) Plaintiffs further allege that “[Defendant] United . . .  has sent over this company to collect the money from us and even suspend our driving or registration privileges if we don’t respond.” (Id., p. 3:17-18.) Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he reason for [their] complaint is because both insurances have ignored [Plaintiffs] and [their] property damages, [and] aside from that, they . . . [want] [Plaintiffs] to pay for the other parties damages.” (Id., p. 3:23-24.) The FAC alleges that Plaintiffs “would like United Financial or AAA to respond to [their] damages and place a 50/50 fault.” (Id., p. 4:4-5.)

The Court finds that the FAC does not state a claim for negligence against Defendant United. The FAC does not allege that Defendant United owed Plaintiffs a duty, does not allege the breach of a duty, and does not allege causation. In fact, the FAC does not even allege any damages caused by Defendant United. The FAC only makes a cursory reference to Defendant United in the context of Defendant United insuring the other driver involved in the automobile accident and Defendant United attempting to collect payments it made arising from the automobile accident.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the FAC fails to state a cause of action for negligence against Defendant United. Moreover, the lack of an opposition brief leads to an inference that the demurrer is meritorious. Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410. By failing to oppose the demurrer, Plaintiffs have conceded to the arguments raised therein because “[c]ontentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.” Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215. The Court acknowledges that Plaintiffs are self-represented, however, a pro per litigant is held to the same standard as an attorney. Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.

            The Court SUSTAINS Defendant United’s demurrer to the FAC without leave to amend. The Court finds that there lacks a reasonable possibility of amendment given Plaintiffs’ acknowledgment in the FAC that Defendant United was not the insurance carrier for Plaintiffs.  As such, Plaintiffs cannot maintain a negligence claim against Defendant United as it owes no legal duty of care to them.    

II.        Conclusion

            In sum, Defendant’s United’s Demurrer to the FAC is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.  

Counsel for the Moving Party is ordered to give notice and to electronically submit a proposed judgment of dismissal within 10-days of this Court’s order.