Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV38973, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV38973, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV38973 Hearing Date: May 30, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

Hearing Date: 5/30/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV38973 KYLE AARON TESTA vs LYFT, INC

Moving Party: Defendant Lyft

Responding Party: Plaintiff

Notice: Sufficient

Tentative Ruling: DEMURRER TO NEGLIGENCT HIRING SUSTAINED; COURT TO HEAR ARGUMENT RE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION

Background

Plaintiff Kyle Testa, while a passenger in a Lyft vehicle, was allegedly assaulted by the driver, Robert Doe. Testa is suing Robert Doe for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligence. In addition, Testa has brought claims against Lyft for general negligence and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. On February 29, 2024, the Court sustained Lyft's demurrer as to Plaintiff's general negligence and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention causes of action against Lyft, and allowed Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC). Plaintiff filed a FAC, and Lyft now again demurs, arguing that the FAC suffers from the same defects as the original complaint and fails to allege how Lyft was aware or should have known that hiring Defendant Robert Doe created a particular risk and arguing that the negligence cause of action is uncertain.

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].)

A demurrer to a pleading lies where the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (f).) “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.) As a result, a special demurrer for uncertainty is not intended to reach failure to incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading but is directed only at uncertainty existing in the allegations already made. (People v. Taliaferro (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 822, 825.) Where complaint is sufficient to state a cause of action and to apprise defendant of issues he is to meet, it is not properly subject to a special demurrer for uncertainty. (See ibid.; see also Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643 [“[a] special demurrer [for uncertainty] should be overruled where the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues which he is to meet”].)

Preliminary Issue

Defendant contends that Plaintiff had only 10 days to file the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Cal. R. Ct. § 3.1320(g). Plaintiff contends that they were orally advised at the hearing of the first demurrer to file within 30 days, and therefore calendared the dates accordingly. The minute order does not reflect that the court granted 30 days to file a First Amended Complaint. In any event, the Court finds that to the extent the amended filing was late, it was an excusable mistake on the part of Plaintiff and, adhering to the principle of liberal amendments and resolving cases on their merits, will excuse Plaintiff's alleged late filing. Thus, Defendant’s motion to strike FAC on the basis that the FAC was served late is overruled.

Discussion

The Court previously granted the demurrer to the initial complaint on the grounds that it pled legal conclusions, and the allegations did not specifically relate to Defendant Robert Doe’s alleged assault on Plaintiff. The Court noted that if Plaintiff could demonstrate that Lyft knew or should have known about this specific driver's risk of danger and neglected to take any action, it would sufficiently show that Lyft was a substantial factor in Plaintiff's injuries.

The First Amended Complaint (FAC) improves upon the initial complaint in that new allegations are not legal conclusions. Rather, they appear to be ultimate facts and thus appropriately pled. For example, Plaintiff has alleged new pertinent facts as follows:

Defendant LYFT breached its duty of care to Plaintiff by failing to implement adequate measures for vetting its drivers and by not notifying its passengers upon becoming aware of any driver's hazardous tendencies. Such dereliction of duty by Defendant LYFT was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. (FAC ¶ 38.)

Defendant LYFT's breach of its duty to enact proper screening protocols for its drivers allowed Defendant ROBERT DOE, a driver with dangerous inclinations, to be placed in a situation where he could, and did, assault Plaintiff. This breach of duty by Defendant LYFT directly caused the circumstances leading to Plaintiff’s harm. (FAC ¶ 39.)

1. Negligent Hiring

While Plaintiff has addressed the issue relating to pleading conclusions of law, he has not addressed the issue that the Court noted in granting the first demurrer: he has not made allegations to demonstrate that Lyft knew or should have known about Robert Doe’s risk of danger and neglected to take any action to prevent Doe’s hiring. The apparent effort to remedy this with a reference to Robert Doe having “dangerous inclinations” is vague and uncertain.

2. Negligence

The Court will discuss the negligence cause of action with the parties.