Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV30302, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30302    Hearing Date: January 21, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On December 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present case against Robert Martin and Tyler M. Ryan for negligence. Plaintiff alleges that “Plaintiff was on the 110 NB in the fast track lane in stop-and-go traffic. Once she released her foot off the brake to move forward, Plaintiff was rear-ended by Defendant Robert Martin, who was initially hit by Defendant Tyler M. Ryan.” Defendant Robert Martin now moves the Court for demurrer. No opposition is filed.

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.¿ (Wilson v. Transit Authority of City of Sacramento (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21.)¿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 pleading alone, and not on the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Id.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) Before filing a demurrer, demurring party is also 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. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41.) 

Discussion

To plead a cause of action for negligence, one must allege: (1) a legal duty owed to Plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of that duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to Plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)

The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s complaint has not pled ultimate facts as to all elements of negligence, particularly breach of duty and causation.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Martin rear-ended her vehicle after being struck by Defendant Ryan. However, Plaintiff does not include any factual allegations showing how Defendant Martin breached his duty of care. The fact that Defendant Martin’s vehicle struck Plaintiff’s does not, by itself, establish negligence. Plaintiff does not allege any ultimate facts as to Defendant Martin’s negligence. For example, Plaintiff does not allege whether Defendant Martin was inattentive, distracted, or otherwise failed to take reasonable precautions to mitigate the impact of being rear-ended by Defendant Ryan.

Similarly, Plaintiff fails to plead proximate causation as it pertains to Defendant Martin. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ryan struck Defendant Martin, causing him to rear-end Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff does not include facts demonstrating that Defendant Martin’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm. For example, Plaintiff does not allege facts suggesting that Defendant Martin’s own actions, rather than the impact caused by Defendant Ryan, were a substantial factor in causing the collision.

Without such facts, Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of the pleading standard under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10(a)(1). Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. Given the lack of detail in Plaintiff’s complaint, there is a possibility that Plaintiff can plead ultimate facts as to all elements of her causes of action.

Traffic Report

Defendant Martin argues that even if Plaintiff properly pleaded a negligence claim, Plaintiff’s submissions, specifically the Claim to the City of Redondo Beach and the Traffic Crash Report, which Defendant requests the Court to take judicial notice of, contradict those allegations and confirm Plaintiff cannot establish negligence against Martin.

The Claim states Martin’s vehicle was rear-ended by Ryan’s vehicle, causing a chain reaction that led to Plaintiff’s vehicle being hit. The Traffic Crash Report attributes the collision solely to Ryan’s unsafe speed under California Vehicle Code § 22350 and assigns no fault to Martin.

Defendant Martin contends that by including the Traffic Crash Report with the Claim, Plaintiff endorsed its findings and is bound by them, precluding Plaintiff from contradicting these documents to avoid a demurrer.

The Court notes that while it may take judicial notice of the existence of Plaintiff’s Claim and the Traffic Report, the facts and findings within the report are not judicially noticeable. (See Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 885.) Accordingly, the traffic report cannot serve as a basis to contradict the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint.

       Government Claims Act

Defendant also contends that Plaintiff’s Complaint is defective and subject to Demurrer because it fails to plead compliance with the Tort Claims Act. As a police officer for the City of Redondo Beach, Defendant Martin is a public employee subject to the Government Tort Claims Act. Under Government Code section 945.4, no lawsuit for damages may be brought against a public employee unless the plaintiff has first presented a written claim to the public entity and the claim has been rejected.

Under Government Code section 945.4, a plaintiff cannot bring a lawsuit against a public entity for a cause of action requiring a claim unless a written claim has first been presented to the entity. The Government Tort Claims Act applies when a plaintiff sues a public entity or a public employee in their official capacity. However, if Plaintiff is suing Defendant Martin in his personal capacity, and there is no allegation that Defendant was acting within the scope of his employment, then the requirements of the Tort Claims Act, such as filing a claim with the public entity before filing suit, do not apply.

In the complaint, Plaintiff is not suing the City of Redondo Beach, and there is no allegation that Defendant was acting within the scope of his employment with a public entity. Accordingly, there is no need for Plaintiff to allege compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act. However, if Plaintiff amends the complaint to include the City of Redondo Beach and alleges vicarious liability, Defendant can bring a demurrer based on the Government Tort Claims Act at that time.

Conclusion

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend within 20 days because Plaintiff has failed to plead ultimate facts establishing all elements of her cause of action.

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’s 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.