Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV04476, Date: 2025-02-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV04476 Hearing Date: February 18, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 1, 2023, Plaintiff Phill John Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed this actions against Defendants 1819 S. Gramercy, LLC, KMM Management, Inc., and Does 1-25 for general negligence and premises liability.
On October 23, 2024, Defendants 1819 S. Gramercy, LLC and KMM Management, Inc. (“Defendants”) filed a demurrer. The demurrer was set for hearing on December 4, 2024. On November 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On December 11, 2024, Defendants filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to February 18, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendants ask the Court to sustain the demurrer.
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 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.)
“ ‘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.)
B. Negligence and premises liability
“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: 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. Plaintiff’s complaint
The complaint alleges in part:
On or about March 16, 2021, Defendants negligently and carelessly owned, occupied, maintained, inspected, supervised, operated, controlled, managed, cleaned, used, repaired, directed and superintended their premises located at 1819 South Gramercy Place in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California (“premises”), causing Plaintiff to slip and fall when he came into contact with a dangerous condition on the premises. The dangerous condition was a floor that had been hosed down and had no warning signs posted regarding the wet and slippery condition. As a result of Defendants’ negligence and carelessness, Plaintiff sustained injuries and damages.
B. Defendants’ demurrer
1. Release
Defendants argue that on October 12, 2023, Plaintiff released all known and unknown claims against Defendants by executing a Mediation Settlement Agreement (“Release”) in another action against the same defendants in return for a settlement payment.
To support their argument, Defendants have filed a request for judicial notice of two documents filed in case number 20STCV21156: (1) Plaintiff’s Amended Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement filed on or about December 9, 2023, and (2) the Judgment entered on or about March 25, 2024. The Court grants Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the two documents. (See Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.)
“Although the existence of a document may be judicially noticeable, the truth of statements contained in the document and its proper interpretation are not subject to judicial notice if those matters are reasonably disputable. [Citation.] . . . . ‘In ruling on a demurrer, a court may consider facts of which it has taken judicial notice. [Citation.] This includes the existence of a document. When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.’ [Citation.]” (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113 (Fremont).)
In addition, “[t]aking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning. [Citation.] On a demurrer a court's function is limited to testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint. [Citation.] ‘A demurrer is simply not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts.’ [Citation.] The hearing on demurrer may not be turned into a contested evidentiary hearing through the guise of having the court take judicial notice of documents whose truthfulness or proper interpretation are disputable. [Citation.] ‘[J]udicial notice of matters upon demurrer will be dispositive only in those instances where there is not or cannot be a factual dispute concerning that which is sought to be judicially noticed.’ [Citation.]” (Fremont, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 113-114.)
Here, Defendants contend that the two documents filed in case number 20STCV21156 show that Plaintiff waived the claims asserted in the current lawsuit.
Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that the two documents filed in case number 20STCV21156 show that the settlement involved a different accident than the accident giving rise to this case. (Opposition pp. 4-5.) The complaint in this case alleges that the accident took place on March 16, 2021. The Release states that the accident in case number 20STCV21156 took place on October 4, 2019. (¶ 2.)
Defendants do not address the discrepancy in dates or explain how the Release in case number 20STCV21156 released claims arising out of an accident that (apparently) took place on a different date than the accident at issue in case number 20STCV21156.
The Court finds that a factual dispute exists about whether Plaintiff released his claims in this case. Therefore, the Court overrules Defendants’ demurrer based on the Release.
2. Uncertainty
“A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 7:85, p. 7(l)-44.)
Here, Defendants assert that the complaint is “uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible . . . .” (Demurrer p. 2.) However, Defendants provide no further argument or analysis of this issue. The Court considers the argument waived.
Even
if Defendants had not waived the argument, the Court has reviewed the complaint
and demurrer and finds that the complaint is sufficiently clear to permit Defendants
to submit a responsive pleading. The Court overrules the demurrer based on uncertainty.
CONCLUSION
The Court OVERRULES the demurrer filed by Defendants 1819 S. Gramercy, LLC and KMM Management, Inc. to Plaintiff Phill John Williams’s complaint.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file proof of service of this ruling within five days.