Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV29437, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29437    Hearing Date: November 21, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is a wrongful death action. On September 9, 2022, Plaintiffs Isabel Violet Arciniega and Juan Carlos Arciniega, individually and as the Successors-in-Interest to the Estate of Jose Antonio Arciniega (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against Defendants Maersk A/S, a Danish Shipping Company, doing business as A.P. Moller – Maersk (“Maersk”), Damco Distribution Services Inc., Damco USA Inc., Lindsey Cook, Sergio Lee, and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

On April 11, 2023, Maersk filed a cross-complaint (the “Cross-Complaint”)[1] against Cross-Defendants MDB Transportation, Inc. (“MDB”), United States Logistics Group, Gabriel Mendez, San Judas Tadeo Trucking, LLC, 52 Degree Lane, Inc., Ximena Lilian Ruiz Rochin, Irasema Rochin De Fernandez, and Roes 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for express indemnity, full equitable indemnity, partial equitable indemnity, implied indemnity, declaratory relief, and negligence.

On October 12, 2023, MDB filed a demurrer to Maersk’s Cross-Complaint.  The demurrer is unopposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

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.)  “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.  [Citation.]”  (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].)  Allegations are to be liberally construed.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).)  The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)  The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)  An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (b).)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully.  (Ibid.)

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

III.        DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

          Counsel for MDB indicates having met and conferred with counsel for Maersk regarding the subject matter of this demurrer. (Kahn Decl., ¶¶ 5-17.) The Court finds MDB has sufficiently and met and conferred per Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a).

Analysis

“If an action as provided in this chapter prosecuted by the employee, the employer, or both jointly against the third person results in judgment against such third person, or settlement by such third person, the employer shall have no liability to reimburse or hold such third person harmless on such judgment or settlement in absence of a written agreement so to do executed prior to the injury.” (Lab. Code § 3864; see also Alameda Tank Co. v. Starkist Foods, Inc. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 428, 432-433 [allowing implied indemnity would permit a worker, “having received worker's compensation, not only to recover an additional sum from a third party tortfeasor, but then to make possible for that third party to impose on the employer liability for a sum beyond that provided in the worker's compensation scheme.”])

MDB contends that Maersk’s Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action for Full Equitable Indemnity, Partial Equitable Indemnity, and Implied Indemnity, respectively, are barred by the exclusive remedy of California’s Workers’ Compensation law per Labor Code section 3864. MDB contends that the decedent in this action died from injuries suffered in the course and scope of his employment with MDB, that MDB is and was insured by a workers’ compensation insurance policy, and the alleged incident arose out of the negligence of third parties. The Court agrees.

The Cross-Complaint alleges that the decedent was an employee of MDB at the time of the accident. (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 9).  Every employer in California is required to provide workers compensation benefits to their employees.  Cal. Labor Code § 3700.  As such, in considering this demurrer, the Court can appropriately infer that decedent was covered by Worker’s Compensation Insurance.  (See Bush v. California Conservation Corps (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 194, 200 (“[i]n assessing the sufficiency of a demurrer, all material facts pleaded in the complaint and those which arise by reasonable implication are deemed true.”); Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 883 (in determining a demurrer, the court assumes the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts)).  With this inference, and in light of the fact that Maersk has not opposed the demurrer, the Court hereby grants the demurrer. 

CONCLUSION

MDB Transportation, Inc’s. demurrer to the Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action in Maersk’s Cross-Complaint is GRANTED without leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.

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.

Dated this 20^th day of November, 2023