Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV12082, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV12082, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12082 Hearing Date: March 1, 2024 Dept: 27

Complaint Filed: 5/30/2023

Hon. Lee S. Arian¿

Department 27¿

Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 3/1/2024 at 1:30 p.m.¿¿

Case No./Name.: 23STCV12082 - SAMUEL HIDALGO, AN INDIVIDUAL vs MAURICIO DE JESUS MARTINEZ

Motion: Demurrer without Motion to Strike¿

Moving Party: Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Samuel Hidalgo

Notice: Sufficient¿¿

¿¿

Ruling: DEFENDANT, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s Demurrer is GRANTED with leave to amend¿

¿¿

Background

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on November 14, 2023, detailing an incident where Plaintiff was loading his truck with materials purchased from Home Depot, Inc. U.S.A. in their designated loading zone. Defendant LOPEZ, parked in the adjacent spot, allegedly backed out negligently resulting in injuries to Plaintiff. Defendant Home Depot is moving for a demurrer as to Plaintiff’s first cause of action of general negligence arguing that it was not sufficiently pled regarding Home Depot's involvement.

Meet and Confer¿

Before filing a demurrer, the moving party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading to attempt to reach an agreement that would resolve the objections to the pleading.¿ (CCP § 430.41.)¿ The parties have fulfilled the meet and confer requirement. Plaintiff also does not oppose the motion on this basis.

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.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. 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 pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (CCP §§ 430.30, 430.70.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A “demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732, internal citations omitted.)¿¿

¿¿

“Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given.” (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.) It is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where there is any reasonable possibility that plaintiff can state a good cause of action. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) The burden is on plaintiff to show¿in what manner¿plaintiff can amend the complaint, and¿how¿that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. ¿(Id.)¿¿

Analysis

For a general negligence claim, a plaintiff must plead four elements (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)

Under the specific allegations of the first cause of action for general negligence, the complaint references Home Depot only to the extent that Plaintiff was injured in Home Depot’s designated loading zone. (Complaint ¶ 9.) Other specific allegations in the first cause of action fail to reference Home Depot, focusing mainly on allegations against Defendant Lopez. In the general allegations section, the only mention of Home Depot is to establish its corporate identity and business operations within California, noting, "Defendant, HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. (HOME DEPOT) is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint, a corporation doing business within California. (Complaint ¶ 5.)

Even if Plaintiff incorporates the general allegations within the specific allegations for the first cause of action for negligence by virtue of paragraph 8 of the complaint as Plaintiff has argued, still no elements of negligence have been pled.

From the facts alleged in the Complaint, a reasonable possibility exists for Plaintiff to make a sufficient showing to sufficiently allege a cause of action for general negligence. Thus, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.