Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV37452, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

This is an action arising from an apartment fire located at 1073 Aileron Avenue, Apartment F, La Puente, California (the “Subject Premises”). On October 8, 2021, Plaintiff Esmaralda Y. Fuentes-Perez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Run D. Wu, Dan Yuedong Wu (“Defendant Dan Wu”), and Does 1 to 100 (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging causes of action for negligence and premises liability.

On January 26, 2023, the Court adopted its tentative ruling without a hearing and granted Defendant Dan Wu’s motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiff. The Court imposed issue sanctions against Plaintiff due to Plaintiff’s repeated misuses of the discovery process “by way of preventing Plaintiff from presenting any evidence regarding whether Defendant [Dan Wu] was negligent or maintained the Subject Premises in an unsafe manner.” (January 26, 2023 Minute Order at p. 6.) The Court also issued monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $460.00.

On February 16, 2023, Defendant Dan Wu filed and served Notice of Ruling as to Defendant Dan Wu’s motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions.

On October 25, 2023, Defendant Dan Wu filed and served a motion for judgment on the pleadings (the “Motion”). The Motion is unopposed. Any opposition to the Motion was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to hearing pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1005(b).

The Motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot prove the causes of action asserted in the complaint against Defendant Dan Wu because the Court’s January 26, 2023 Minute Order bars Plaintiff from presenting any evidence as to whether Defendant was negligent or maintained the Subject Premises in an unsafe manner. Defendant Dan Wu contends that the evidentiary sanction prevents Plaintiff from proving an element of each of the causes of action in the complaint.

The Court GRANTS Defendant Dan Wu’s Request for Judicial Notice. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) The Court therefore takes judicial notice of the Court’s January 26, 2023 Minute Order.

A party may move for judgment on the pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(b)(1).) A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings where “[t]he complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1)(B)(ii).) “A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself.” (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.) “Such motion may be made on the same ground as those supporting a general demurrer, i.e., that the pleading at issue fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim or defense.” (Ibid.) The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings “shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(d).) “On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, leave to amend should be granted if there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action.” (Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor District (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 211, 221.) “The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff.” (Ibid.)

“The elements of a cause of action for negligence are (1) a legal duty to use reasonable care, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) proximate [or legal] cause between the breach and (4) the plaintiff’s injury.” (Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139.) A cause of action for premises liability requires the same elements necessary to state a cause of action for negligence. (Martinez v. City of Beverly Hills (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 508, 517.)

The Court’s January 26, 2023 Minute Order bars Plaintiff from presenting any evidence as to whether Defendant Dan Wu was negligent or maintained the Subject Premises in an unsafe manner. It follows that Plaintiff cannot establish her causes of action for negligence and premises liability without any evidence. Plaintiff cannot prevail on the causes of action asserted in the complaint due to the imposition of sanctions.

Moreover, based on a review of the complaint, Plaintiff has failed to plead that Defendant Dan Wu’s actions were the proximate or legal cause of Plaintiff’s alleged damages. (Complaint, ¶¶ 6-19.) Plaintiff has therefore not alleged the element of causation needed to state a cause of action for negligence or premises liability.

The Motion is also unopposed which leads to an inference it has merit pursuant to Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED without leave to amend. Due to the lack of an opposition, Plaintiff has not met her burden in showing how the complaint can be amended to state a valid cause of action for negligence or premises liability.

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. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court