Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV02476, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV02476 Hearing Date: April 14, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the demurring, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Prior proceedings
On February 3, 2023, Plaintiff Britney Brown (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Terell Evans, Donetta Evans (“Donetta Evans”), Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Enterprise Holdings”), Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles (“Enterprise”), LLC, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and Does 1-50 for negligence.
On December 5, 2024, Donetta Evans filed an answer. On April 7, 2025, Defendant Terrell Evans filed an answer.
B. This motion
On December 27, 2024, Enterprise filed a Declaration of Demurring or Moving Party in Support of Automatic Extension.
On January 24, 2025, Enterprise Holdings and Enterprise (“Moving Defendants”) filed a demurrer. The demurrer was set for hearing on February 24, 2025. On February 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On February 14, 2025, Moving Defendants filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to April 14, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Moving Defendants ask the Court to sustain the demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint.
Plaintiff asks the Court to overrule the demurrer.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Demurrer
Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 provides in part:
“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 2024) ¶ 7:43, p. 7(l)-25, emphasis omitted (Cal. Practice Guide).)
“The demurrer should not be sustained where a plaintiff can cure a defective complaint by amendment or where the pleading, liberally construed, can state a cause of action.” (Jager v. County of Alameda (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 294, 297.)
B. Graves amendment
49 U.S.C. section 3016, known as the Graves amendment, provides:
“(a) In general.--An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if--
“(1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and
“(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner).
“(b) Financial responsibility laws--Nothing in this section supersedes the law of any State or political subdivision thereof--
“(1) imposing financial responsibility or insurance standards on the owner of a motor vehicle for the privilege of registering and operating a motor vehicle; or
“(2) imposing liability on business entities engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles for failure to meet the financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements under State law.
“(c) Applicability and effective date.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this section shall apply with respect to any action commenced on or after the date of enactment of this section without regard to whether the harm that is the subject of the action, or the conduct that caused the harm, occurred before such date of enactment.
“(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
“(1) Affiliate.--The term “affiliate” means a person other than the owner that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the owner. In the preceding sentence, the term “control” means the power to direct the management and policies of a person whether through ownership of voting securities or otherwise.
“(2) Owner.--The term “owner” means a person who is--
“(A) a record or beneficial owner, holder of title, lessor, or lessee of a motor vehicle;
“(B) entitled to the use and possession of a motor vehicle subject to a security interest in another person; or
“(C) a lessor, lessee, or a bailee of a motor vehicle, in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, having the use or possession thereof, under a lease, bailment, or otherwise.
“(3) Person.--The term “person” means any individual, corporation, company, limited liability company, trust, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity.”
(49 U.S.C. § 30106.)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
The complaint includes the following allegations:
On or about March 4, 2021, on Gage Street in Los Angeles County, Defendants negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, drove, and operated their vehicle, causing it to collide with Plaintiff's vehicle, injuring Plaintiff.
B. Moving Defendants’ demurrer
1. Failure to state a cause of action
Moving Defendants ask the Court to sustain their demurrer because, they argue, the complaint does not plead sufficient facts to state a cause of action. The argument is based in part on the incorrect premise that Plaintiff submitted a Judicial Council form complaint which merely “ ‘check[s] the boxes’ for operation, employer, ownership, entrustment, and employee . . . .” (Demurrer p. 4.) However, Plaintiff did not file a Judicial Council form complaint.
“ ‘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, quoting C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) Plaintiff’s complaint, while light on detail, sufficiently pleads the material facts supporting Plaintiff’s negligence claim.
2. Graves amendment
Moving Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s action is barred by the Graves amendment. To support the argument, Moving Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of “the fact that ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., is in the business of renting vehicles, as it is both generalized and common knowledge, without reasonable dispute, that ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., is in the business of renting vehicles.” (Demurrer p. 7; see Declaration of Gene S. Stone ¶ 4 [“The business of ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES, LLC as a renter and lessor of vehicles is common knowledge and it is requested that the court take judicial notice of that fact”].)
“Any request for judicial notice must be made in a separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested . . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(l); see Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 9:54, p. 9(l)-35 [“The judicial notice request must be a separate document that is typically served with the moving or opposing papers. Do not bury your request in another document—e.g., memorandum of points and authorities”].)
Moving Defendants’ request for judicial notice is contained in their memorandum of points and authorities and in counsel’s supporting declaration. They have not submitted a separate judicial notice request. In addition, Moving Defendants have not cited any published decision allowing a court to take judicial notice that a party is engaged in a particular line of business. The Court denies Moving Defendants’ request for judicial notice. As a result, the Graves amendment cannot serve as a basis for the demurrer.
3. Uncertainty
Moving Defendants contend that the complaint is uncertain because it is unclear which claims are stated against them.
The Court finds that the complaint is sufficiently certain to withstand Moving Defendants’ demurrer.
CONCLUSION
The Court OVERRULES the demurrer filed by Defendants Enterprise Holdings, Inc. and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling within five days.