Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV05353, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 22STCV05353 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff Julio Alberto Pineda (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Estate of Larry Edward Voit (“Estate”) and Does 1-25 for general negligence.
On September 7, 2022, Estate filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.
On May 16, 2023, the Court granted Barrett Business Services, Inc.’s motion to intervene. On June 14, 2023, Plaintiff-in-Intervention Barrett Business Services, Inc. (“Barrett”) filed a complaint against Estate and Moes 1-100.
On July 24, 2023, Estate filed an answer to Barrett’s complaint.
On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Bruce Wilson as Doe 1, Allied Aerospace, Inc., doing business as Allied Aircraft Engine, doing business as Allied Aero Engines, as Doe 2, Great American Aviation as Doe 3, Baker Aero Electric as Doe 4, Corona Aircraft Engines, Inc., doing business as Corona Engines, as Doe 5 (“Corona”), Bob Walmsley as Doe 6, David Baker as Doe 7, R.G. Walmsley as Doe 8, and Dan Woodside as Doe 9.
On May 17, 2024, Corona filed a demurrer to be heard on June 18, 2024. On June 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On June 11, 2024, Corona filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to July 12, 2024.
Trial is currently scheduled for November 13, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Corona asks the Court to sustain the demurrer to Plaintiff’s general negligence claim.
Plaintiff asks the Court to overrule 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:
“(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.)
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.
Plaintiff’s
complaint
Plaintiff’s
complaint alleges the following:
On or about February 19, 2021, at 2500 Navy Way in the City of San Pedro, County of Los Angeles, State of California, Decedent Larry Edward Voit (“Decedent”) negligently and carelessly entrusted, managed, maintained controlled, flew and operated his Piper PA-32-260 Cherokee Six aircraft, and failed to use reasonable care while flying and landing the aircraft among other negligent and unlawful acts, directly and proximately causing the aircraft to collide with the semi-tractor trailer that Plaintiff was operating. Decedent’s negligence and carelessness caused Plaintiff to sustain injuries and damages.
Estate and Does 1-25 were the legal (proximate) cause of Plaintiff’s damages.
Does 1-15 were the agents or employees of other named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment.
Plaintiff later amended the complaint to name Corona as Doe 5.
B. Corona’s demurrer
In opposition, Plaintiff argues Corona has no standing to demur because the complaint “had mistakenly and improperly been served” on Corona and the Court did not sign the Doe amendment.
Corona has standing to demur. Whether “mistakenly” or not, Plaintiff served the complaint on Corona. And the Court does not require an order for this kind of amendment. (See Amendment to Complaint form, LASC CIV 105 (Rev. 09/23) on Los Angeles Superior Court website.) Because Plaintiff filed the Doe amendment and served the complaint on Corona, Corona is a defendant in this case.
Plaintiff also asserts that Corona violated the meet
and confer requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. Corona disputes the assertion, pointing to
his counsel’s efforts to contact Plaintiff’s counsel before filing the
demurrer. (See LaScola dec. ¶¶ 4-6;
Reply, fn. 1.) The Court need not resolve this dispute because “[a] determination by the
court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to
overrule or sustain a demurrer.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).)
In a misleading gloss on his complaint, Plaintiff
contends that he alleged: “[Defendants] negligently and carelessly entrusted,
managed, maintained, controlled, flew and operated… [the] aircraft.” (Opposition p. 5.) In fact, the complaint alleges that “Decedent
LARRY EDWARD VOIT negligently and carelessly entrusted, managed, maintained
controlled, flew and operated his Piper PA-32-260 Cherokee Six aircraft . . . .” (Capitalization in the original.) Misrepresentations do not advance Plaintiff's arguments.
“[A] bare allegation that ‘defendant’s negligence caused plaintiff injury’ is not sufficient. Plaintiff must allege the acts or omissions that are claimed to have constituted the negligence.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 6:129, p. 6-44.)
Here, Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing Corona’s
acts or omissions constituted negligence or caused Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court sustains the demurrer.
CONCLUSION
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.