Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV19398, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV19398 Hearing Date: November 9, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 24, 2021, Plaintiff Abby Ademe (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants John Yu (“Yu”), Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, intentional tort, products liability, premises liability and emotional distress.
On May 3, 2023, Uber filed an answer.
On June 20, 2023, the Court granted Uber’s motion to compel arbitration.
On August 8, 2023, Yu filed a demurrer to be heard on September 27, 2023.
On September 18, 2023, Yu filed a declaration by his counsel addressing the scope of the stay the Court imposed when it granted Uber’s motion to compel arbitration.
On September 27, 2023, the Court issued an order clarifying that the stay issued on applies only to Plaintiff’s claims against Uber. Plaintiff’s claims against Yu are not subject to the stay. The Court continued the hearing on the demurrer to November 9, 2023 to give Plaintiff an opportunity to file an opposition.
Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the demurrer.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Yu requests that the Court sustain the demurrer.
LEGAL STANDARD
“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:
* * *
“(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, ‘uncertain’ includes ambiguous and unintelligible. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (f).)
In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a) [“When any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading”].)
“For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded (i.e., all ultimate facts alleged, but not conclusions, deductions, or conclusions of facts or law).” (L. Edmon and C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 7:43, p. 7(l)-25, emphasis omitted (Cal. Practice Guide).)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
In his complaint Plaintiff alleges the following:
On June 1, 2019, at South La Brea Avenue and West 23rd Street in Los Angeles, CA 90016, “the defendant(s) and each of them did so carelessly and negligently, and recklessly owned , operated, and entrusted, leased, maintained, and or drove their vehicles in such a way as to cause injuries to the plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleges that said negligent acts of the defendant(s) and each of them is an actual, direct, legal, and proximate cause of the physical, mental and economic injuries suffered by the plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of these injuries, plaintiff has incurred losses of income, losses of earning capacity, medical expenses, emotional distress and severe pain and suffering.” Defendants’ acts were negligent and were the legal (proximate) cause of injuries and damages to Plaintiff.
Yu, an employee of Uber, operated the vehicle in the course of his employment.
The form complaint asserts claims for motor vehicle, general negligence, intentional tort, products liability, premises liability, and “emotional distress.”
B. The demurrer
1. Motor vehicle tort and general negligence claims
Yu argues that the motor vehicle and general negligence claims are uncertain and fail to state facts sufficient to support a claim against him.
“The elements of a negligence claim [are] . . . a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1159.)
“A demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action provides a quick way of getting the case decided on assumed facts. I.e., assuming the facts alleged in the complaint are true, do they state any valid cause of action? If they do, the general demurrer must be overruled. If they do not, the demurrer should be sustained; and, if the complaint cannot be amended to state a cause of action, the action should be dismissed. [¶] But only ultimate facts need be alleged: ‘To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.’ ” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 7:40, p. 7(l)-21, emphasis added.)
Plaintiff’s complaint pleads the elements of a negligence claim and therefore states a cause of action for motor vehicle tort and negligence. The lack of evidentiary facts does not render these claims uncertain. The Court overrules the demurrer to these claims.
2. Claims for intentional tort, products liability, and premises liability
The complaint alleges no facts that support Plaintiff's claims for intentional tort, products liability, or premises liability. The Court sustains the demurrer to these claims.
3. Claim for emotional distress
“Emotional
distress” is an element of potential damages, not a cause of action. The Court sustains the demurrer to this
claim.
CONCLUSION
The Court OVERRULES the demurrer of Defendant John Yu to Plaintiff Abby Ademe’s claims for motor vehicle tort and negligence.
The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer of Defendant John Yu to Plaintiff Abby Ademe’s claims for intentional tort, products liability, premises liability, and emotional distress with 30 days leave to amend.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.