Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV33813, Date: 2025-01-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV33813 Hearing Date: January 27, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving and opposition papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff Toni Delliquadri (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Mordechay Balas, also known as Mory Mordechay Balas (“Mordechay Balas”), David Kroh (“Kroh”), and Does 1-50 for negligence and statutory liability.
On November 9, 2022, Mordechay Balas and Kroh filed an answer.
On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Kabbalah Centre International, Incorporated as Doe 1, Kabbalah Centres of the United States, Incorporated, as Doe 2, and Kabbalah Centre as Doe 3.
On March 11, 2024, Defendant Kabbalah Centre International, Incorporated (erroneously sued and served as Kabbalah Centers of the United States, Incorporated and Kabbalah Centre, a business entity of Form Unknown) (“Kabbalah Centre”) filed an answer.
On June 28, 2024, Mordechay Balas, Kroh, and Kabbalah Centre filed an amended answer.
On July 10, 2024, Mordechay Balas, Kroh, and Kabbalah Centre filed a second amended answer.
On August 20, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Sabrina Balas aka Sabrina Kroh aka Sabrina Kelman (“Sabrina Balas”) as Doe 4.
On October 28, 2024, Sabrina Balas filed a demurrer. The demurrer was set for hearing on December 11, 2024. On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Sabrina Balas asks the Court to sustain the demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint.
Plaintiff asks the Court to overrule the demurrer.
LEGAL STANDARDS
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:
* * *
“(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.)
B. Negligence
“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.)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
The complaint included the following allegations:
On or about September 19, 2022, Plaintiff was walking northbound across La Jolla Avenue at the intersection with Colgate Avenue when a grey colored 2013 Toyota Sienna (the “vehicle”), made a right turn from southbound La Jolla Avenue onto Colgate Avenue, striking Plaintiff. Defendants Mordechay Balas, Kroh, and Does 1-50 owned, operated, drove, registered, controlled, maintained, and/or managed the vehicle in a negligent, reckless and careless manner, causing the collision and violating Vehicle Code section 21950, subdivision (c). Mordechay Balas caused the vehicle to strike Plaintiff, causing her bodily harm.
Defendants and in particular Kroh was an owner, registrant, lessor, lessee, bailor and/or bailee of the vehicle and negligently entrusted the vehicle to the driver and were otherwise careless and negligent because they knew and/or had reason to know that said driver was an unfit driver and posed a dangerous risk to the public.
B. The demurrer
Sabrina Balas asks the Court to sustain her demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint, arguing she did not own or drive the vehicle involved in the accident.
The Court overrules the demurrer because it relies on asserted facts outside the complaint.
CONCLUSION
The Court OVERRULES the demurrer of Defendant Sabrina Balas.
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.