TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Quality Rentals, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with thirty (30) days leave to amend as to the third cause of action.

Plaintiff Christopher Michael Dowding may amend his complaint only as authorized by the Court’s order and may not amend the complaint to add a new party or cause of action without having obtained permission to do so. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.)

Defendant Quality Rentals, Inc. to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendant Quality Rentals, Inc. (“Defendant”) has demurred to Plaintiff Christopher Michael Dowding (“Plaintiff”)’s claims for products liability, motor vehicle negligence, and intentional tort in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). In the opposition to the demurrer, Plaintiff states that he now withdraws his claims for motor vehicle negligence and intentional tort as to this defendant. Thus, the Court considers only Plaintiff’s claim for products liability in this demurrer.

Legal Standard

“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967), but the Court does not “assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law” (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125).

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”]; Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 [“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”]; Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”].) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Third Cause of Action: Products Liability

To establish a strict products liability claim, the plaintiff must prove “that there was a defect in the manufacture or design of the product and that such defect was a proximate cause of the injuries.” (Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 121, 133.) Negligent products liability is a form of negligence, which requires proof 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.)

In the third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that he was injured by a Whiteman Power Buggy WBH-21EF on May 1, 2019, manufactured and sold by Defendant, and Defendant is liable under a negligence theory. (FAC, pp. 7-8.) The claim includes no specific facts about the basis for liability, i.e., Plaintiff does not identify the defect responsible for his harm or how the defect caused his injury. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the two-year statute of limitations for a products liability claim (Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1), as Plaintiff alleges his injury occurred on May 1, 2019, and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to allege this claim was not filed until March 21, 2024. Plaintiff argues that the claim is not time barred because it relates back to the original complaint. “The relation-back doctrine typically applies where an amendment identifies a defendant previously named as a Doe defendant or adds a new cause of action asserted by the same plaintiff on the same general set of facts” (San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1549-1550, citations omitted.) A strict products liability cause of action does not arise out of the same facts as the negligence claims asserted in the initial complaint, but a negligence products liability claim appears to relate back to the initial negligence claims. However, the cause of action must be clarified to assert specific facts and show that the claim relates back. Accordingly, Defendant Quality Rentals, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with thirty (30) days leave to amend as to the third cause of action. Plaintiff Christopher Michael Dowding may amend his complaint only as authorized by the Court’s order and may not amend the complaint to add a new party or cause of action without having obtained permission to do so. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.)