Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV23231, Date: 2024-07-31 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: 22STCV23231 Hearing Date: July 31, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff Kamo Martirosyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Monteverde Ranch, LLC, Monteverde Ranch Equestrian Center, LLC, and Does 1-100 for general negligence, strict liability, gross negligence and/or recklessness, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and exemplary damages.
On July 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
On May 9, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for strict liability, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and exemplary damages without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. On July 1, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendant Monteverde Ranch Equestrian Center, LLC, without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On May 10, 2024, Defendant Monteverde Ranch, LLC (“Defendant”) filed a demurrer to the remaining claims in the first amended complaint. The demurrer was set to be heard on June 6, 2024. On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On June 27, 2024, Defendant filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to July 31, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendant asks the Court to sustain the demurrer.
Plaintiff asks the Court to overrule the demurrer or grant leave to amend.
LEGAL STANDARDS
“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:
* * *
“(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. . . .”
(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).)
"A demurrer may be filed to one of several causes of action in the complaint, without answering the other causes of action." (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 7:34.1, p. 7(l)-19.)
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint
The
first amended complaint alleges the following:
Defendant provides guided trail rides on horseback to the public for a fee.
On or around July 20, 2020, Plaintiff paid for a guided horseback riding tour to be led by a professionally trained and competent guide. Defendants assigned Plaintiff a horse to ride.
The guide, Defendants’ employee, was neither trained nor competent. The inexperienced guide’s failure to control his horse caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s horse taking off. Plaintiff’s horse began to show dominance and unusual aggressiveness including trying to run fast, trying to be ahead of the pack, shaking his head, and blowing out of his nose. Defendants nonetheless encouraged Plaintiff to continue riding the horse and advised Plaintiff the horse was fine even though they knew or should have known the horse had dangerous propensities and had thrown or injured other people in the past. Plaintiff trusted that Defendants’ employee had the experience, training and competence to advise Plaintiff to continue to ride the horse.
Plaintiff’s horse threw Plaintiff to the ground, injuring him. Rather than assisting Plaintiff, Defendants attempted to catch the horse.
Defendants had a duty to provide Plaintiff a trained and competent guide and had a duty to not increase the inherent risks of horseback riding. Defendants breached this duty, causing Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. The guide’s negligent acts or omissions increased the inherent risk and/or failed to minimize the risk of horseback riding for Plaintiff because Defendants did not provide necessary instructions and warnings to Plaintiff prior to the subject incident and Defendants did not respond to Plaintiffs warnings and/or requests for help and/or took no action to assist Plaintiff when his horse was acting unusually aggressive.
Defendants had a duty to provide Plaintiff a horse with an appropriate temperament. Defendants breached this duty by selecting the horse assigned to Plaintiff even though Defendants knew the horse was unduly dangerous for riders like Plaintiff.
Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s gross negligence and general negligence claims. On the gross negligence claim, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care. On the general negligence claim, Defendant argues that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine bars the claim because the complaint does not allege facts showing Defendant increased the inherent risk of falling or being thrown from a horse by engaging in reckless conduct totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport of horseback riding.
The complaint alleges that Defendant provided a trail guide who was untrained and unqualified to lead horseback riders along the trail. The guide knew Plaintiff’s horse had thrown or injured people in the past. During the ride, the horse began to act aggressively. Nonetheless, the guide encouraged Plaintiff to continue riding the horse and advised Plaintiff the horse was fine. As a result, the horse threw Plaintiff, injuring him. The Court cannot say that, as a matter of law, these alleged facts do not demonstrate (1) an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care and (2) reckless conduct conduct totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport that increased the risk inherent in the sport.
The Court overrules the demurrer.
CONCLUSION
The Court OVERRULES Defendant Monteverde Ranch, LLC’s demurrer. Defendant Monteverde Ranch, LLC, is to file an answer to the first amended complaint within 10 days.
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.