Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV02022, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02022, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02022 Hearing Date: January 17, 2024 Dept: C

Moises, et al v. ortiz, et al.

CASE NO.: 23NWCV02022

HEARING: 1/17/24 @ 9:30 AM

The Toyota Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendants Toyota Financial Services International Corporation, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, and Toyota Lease Trust (collectively the Toyota Defendants) demur to Plaintiffs Abraham Michelle Suarez Mosies and Luis Alvarez Acosta’s (collectively Plaintiffs) Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action.

Background

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the Toyota Defendants, Defendant Daniel Alejandro Tomelic Ortiz (Ortiz), Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser, LLC, and Raiser-CA, LLC (collectively the Uber Defendants) for negligence and against the Toyota Defendants and Uber Defendants negligent hiring and supervision. The Complaint arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on December 1, 2021, where Ortiz was allegedly driving while under the influence and caused his vehicle to impact the rear of an unknown vehicle which fled the scene. The crash caused significant and life-altering injuries to Plaintiffs who were passengers in Ortiz’s vehicle. Plaintiffs contend that all Defendants created a joint venture to lease or rent vehicles and Ortiz was acting within the course and scope of his employment or agency with the joint venture at the time of the incident. The Complaint alleges the following:

24. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and thereon allege, that TOYOTA DEFENDANTS, UBER DEFENDANTS, ORTIZ DEFENDANTS, and/or and DOES 41 through 50, inclusive, were agents, servants, employees, successors in interest, and/or joint venturers of each other, and were, as such, acting within the course, scope, and authority of said agency, employment and/or venture, and that those Defendants, as aforesaid, when acting as a principal, was/were negligent in the selection of each Defendant as an agent, servant, employee, successor in interest, and/or joint venturer (hereinafter collectively also referred to as “JOINT VENTURERS”).

25. The JOINT VENTURERS each had a joint interest in the common business of leasing and or rental of vehicles, with an understanding to share profits and losses and a right to joint control.

26. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and employees of each other and acting within the scope of their employment and agency as such.

Legal Standard

The party against whom a complaint has been filed may object to the pleading, by demurrer, on several grounds, including the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (CCP § 430.10(e).) A party may demur to an entire complaint, or to any causes of action stated therein. (CCP § 430.50(a).) “‘[A] demurrer based on an affirmative defense will be sustained only where the face of the complaint discloses that the action is necessarily barred by the defense.’” (McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 78-79.)

Discussion

It is well established that 49 USC § 30106 (the Graves Amendment), precludes liability for owners of motor vehicles in the business of renting those vehicles. (See, e.g., Green v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 605 F.Supp.2d 430 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).) Plaintiffs do not contest this point.

Here, Plaintiffs allege that the Toyota Defendants are liable as joint venturers with Ortiz and the Uber Defendants to lease vehicles to ride-share drivers. “A joint venture is an undertaking by two or more persons jointly to carry out a single business enterprise for profit. [Citation.] There must be a community of interest in the enterprise; a sharing of profits and losses; and joint participation in the conduct of the business.” (Lasry v. Lederman (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 480, 485–486.) Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants had a community of interest in their enterprise to lease or rent vehicles, the parties shared profits and losses, and had joint control over the business. (Compl. ¶ 25.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that Ortiz was acting within the course and scope of his agency or employment of the joint venture at the time of the incident giving rise to this action. (Compl. ¶¶ 24 and 26.) This allegation is outside the scope of the Graves Amendment because it is not based solely on Defendants’ ownership of the vehicle, but rather on Ortiz’s alleged employment or agency with the joint venture. The fact that Plaintiff may not have been working at the time of the collision is not contained within the four corners of the Complaint. As such, it cannot be considered when ruling upon a demurrer. Plaintiffs have stated a cause of action at this stage where the allegations are liberally construed. (CCP § 452.) Thus, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged their respondeat superior theory of liability.

Accordingly, the Toyota Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.