Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV02943, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02943, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02943 Hearing Date: August 7, 2024 Dept: C

Valencia VS. francisco echeverria, et al.

CASE NO.: 23NWCV02943

HEARING: 8/7/24 @ 10:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Benito Valdez’s demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Background

This is about a car collision between two automobiles. Plaintiff Aileen Nashelly Valencia (“Plaintiff”) was a passenger in Defendant Francisco Echeverria’s motor vehicle when he collided with a vehicle driven by Defendant Christopher Valdez. (Compl., pp. 4 and 5.) Plaintiff alleges negligence against Defendants Francisco Echeverria, Grimaldo Leticia Garcia, Christopher Valdez and Benito Valdez.

Defendant Benito Valdez demurs to the complaint on the grounds that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as to him.

Legal Standard

The party against whom a complaint has been filed may object to the pleading, by demurrer, on several grounds, including that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A party may demur to an entire complaint, or to any causes of action stated therein. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.50, subd. (a).) The complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded. (Flynn v. Higham (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677, 679.)

The burden is on the complainant to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully, to obtain an order allowing leave to amend. (McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 78.) “Leave to amend should be denied where the facts are not in dispute and the nature of the claim is clear, but no liability exists under substantive law.” (Lawrence v. Bank of America (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 431, 436.)

Meet-and-Confer

Defendant satisfied the meet-and-confer requirements. (Decl. Nguyen, ¶ 3-5; Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

First Cause of Action – Negligence

To state a claim for negligence, Plaintiff must allege the elements of (1) “the existence of a legal duty of care,” (2) “breach of that duty,” and (3) “proximate cause resulting in an injury.” (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.)

Defendant Benito Valdez (“Defendant”) demurs to the negligence cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiff does not allege any facts as to him. Instead, she has pleaded that all four named defendants operated the motor vehicle, owned the vehicle which was operated with their permission, and entrusted the motor vehicle. (Compl., pg. 4.) The Court agrees. A demurrer for uncertainty may lie if the failure to label the parties and claims renders the complaint so confusing defendant cannot tell what defendant is supposed to respond to. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

Thus, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.