Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV23312, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23312    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee S. Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     December 5, 2023                              TRIAL DATE:  January 16, 2024

CASE:                         Enedina Ramos Vargas, et al.  v.  Joshua William Fear, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV23312

DEMURRER WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:     No Opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On July 19, 2022, Enedina Ramos Vargas (“Vargas”) and Kimberly Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against Joshua William Fear (“Fear”), Chelsea Nuss (“Nuss”), EAN Holdings (“EAN”), Lourdes Guzman Rebolledo (“Rebolledo”), and DOES 1-50 (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision on September 20, 2020.

On November 28, 2023, Defendant EAN filed this Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff did not file an Opposition.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD & DISCUSSION

Judicial Notice

On October 6, 2023, Defendant served a request for judicial notice to show that it is involved in renting/leasing vehicles and to show that Enterprise is an affiliate. The requests are based upon copies of Statements of Information filed with the California Secretary of State. (Exhibit B). The Court takes judicial notice of the Statements of Information to the extent that the Statements of Information were filed with the California Secretary of State and not for the truth of the matters asserted therein.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h).)

Meet and Confer 

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party shall meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading and shall file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) 

Defendant’s counsel has satisfied this requirement because he attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel to no avail. (Declaration of Adam I. Miller, ¶8-9.) Therefore, the Court considers the merits of Moving Parties’ demurrer.   

California Code of Civil Procedure 430.10

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.) A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Allegations stating a legal conclusion (rather than pleading facts) are inadequate. (Berger v. California Ins. Guar. Assn. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 989, 1006; Jones v. Grewe (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 950, 954.) “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.)   

Negligent Entrustment

The elements of a negligent entrustment claim are (1) the driver was negligent in operating the vehicle, (2) the defendant was the owner of the vehicle, (3) the defendant knew or should have known the driver was incompetent or unfit to drive the vehicle, (4) the defendant permitted the driver to use the vehicle, and (5) the driver’s incompetence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff.¿ (Jeld–Wen, Inc., supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 863, citing CACI No. 724.)  

Plaintiffs’ Complaint states that Defendant EAN negligently entrusted the motor vehicle but fails to provide any facts that would support the elements mentioned above. (Exhibit A, ¶9). Plaintiffs’ Complaint relies on legal conclusions, which are inadequate to satisfy a sufficient pleading (Exhibit A, ¶9).  Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is not sufficiently pled.

Complaint Fails for Uncertainty 

Plaintiffs’ claims fail for lack of certainty. As set forth in the moving papers, Plaintiffs’ claims are asserted in boilerplate fashion with conflicting allegations against all defendants making it unclear as to the scope of the allegations asserted against EAN in order to provide EAN with sufficient notice of the basis for the extent of liability alleged against it. For example, Plaintiffs appear to allege that all Defendants at one time operated one of the vehicles allegedly involved in the accident at issue in this case.  That cannot be the case.  The Court thus sustains the demurrer on this ground.

IV.        CONCLUSION

The unopposed demurrer is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend within 20 days of the date of this ruling.    

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   December 5, 2023                                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    Lee S. Arian

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            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.