Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV02605, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV02605 Hearing Date: September 1, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 21, 2022, Plaintiff Robert Harris (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Pacifica Hotels, LLC, Salt Restaurant & Bar, and Does 1-50 for negligence. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants IWF MDR Hotel, LLC (Doe 1), Pacifica Hotel Company (Doe 2), and Marina Del Rey Hotel (Doe 3).
On July 25, 2023, Pacifica Hotels, LLC filed a demurrer and request for judicial notice to be heard on September 1, 2023. On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On August 24, 2023, Pacifica Hotels, LLC filed a reply.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Pacifica Hotels, LLC requests that the Court grant its request for judicial notice and sustain the demurrer.
Plaintiff requests that the Court overrule the demurrer.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Demurrer
“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:
“(a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.
“(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue.
“(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.
“(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.
“(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
“(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.
“(g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.
“(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)
“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.)
B. Premises liability
“‘The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence.’” (Jones v. Awad (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1200, 1207, quoting Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) “Accordingly, the plaintiff must prove, “ ‘ “a legal duty to use due care, a breach of such legal duty, and the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” ’ ” (Ibid., quoting Beacon Residential Community Assn. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (2014) 59 Cal.4th 568, 573.)
Pacifica Hotels, LLC’s request for judicial notice:
Granted: 1-6, 10-11
Denied: 7-9
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s complaint
The complaint alleges that Pacifica Hotels, LLC and other defendants were the “owners, care takers, and managers” of a building in Los Angeles (the “subject location”) at which Plaintiff was a patron. Defendants allegedly failed to provide safe flooring at the subject location, creating a dangerous and hazardous condition which Defendants knew or should have known existed. According to the complaint, Defendants carelessly and negligently failed and refused to warn or caution Plaintiff or correct or remedy the condition, causing Plaintiff’s injuries on January 23, 2020 at the subject location. (Complaint ¶¶ 6-7, 9.)
Although the complaint names Salt Restaurant & Bar as a defendant, the complaint does not specify how Salt Restaurant & Bar was involved in the events leading to the lawsuit. In his opposition to Pacifica Hotels, LLC’s demurrer, Plaintiff states that he was “walking through the Salt Restaurant to access his car at the valet, where he slipped and fell backwards on uneven and newly washed pavement at the property.” Plaintiff also states that the Marina Del Rey Hotel owns Salt Restaurant & Bar. Therefore, the Court will assume for purposes of the demurrer that Plaintiff was injured at Salt Restaurant & Bar, which was owned by the Marina Del Rey Hotel.
B. Pacifica Hotels, LLC’s demurrer
In its demurrer, Pacifica Hotels, LLC argues “Plaintiff has sued the wrong company. [Pacifica Hotels, LLC] has nothing to do with Salt Restaurant & Bar (the subject matter of Plaintiff s complaint), which is located inside Marina Del Rey Hotel. The Marina Del Rey Hotel is owned by IWF MDR Hotel, LLC (an affiliate of Pacifica Hotel Company). . . . [Pacifica Hotels, LLC] is an affiliate of Prospera Hotels, which has nothing to do with Pacifica Hotel Company.” (Demurrer p. 2.)
The asserted facts on which Pacifica Hotels, LLC relies are not contained in the complaint. According to Pacifica Hotels, LLC, these facts are contained in property records and other materials that are subject to judicial notice because they are “not reasonably subject to dispute” for purposes of Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h).
The Court has carefully reviewed the judicially noticed materials (exhibits 1-6, 10-11 to Pacifica Hotels, LLC’s request for judicial notice). These exhibits do not by themselves establish that Pacifica Hotels, LLC is the “wrong company.” Several of the exhibits are property records from 2023. Even assuming these exhibits show that Pacifica Hotels, LLC does not currently own or control the “subject premises,” the exhibits do not foreclose the possibility that Pacifica Hotels, LLC owned or controlled the premises when Plaintiff was injured in January 2020. Exhibit 6, which is dated October 17, 2019, concerns an entity named “Pacifica Hotel Properties, LLC,” which has the same principal address as Pacifica Hotel Company. Pacifica Hotels, LLC does not show it is unrelated to “Pacifica Hotel Properties, LLC.”
The Court overrules the demurrer.
CONCLUSION
The Court OVERRULES Defendant Pacifica Hotels, LLC’s demurrer.
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.