Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV07056, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07056    Hearing Date: December 21, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.  

BACKGROUND 

On March 30, 2023, Plaintiff Reynaldo Maradiaga (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Tobias Benito Torralva (“Torralva”), Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), and Does 1-100 for wrongful death, negligence – motor vehicle, negligence, and negligence per se. 

On November 7, 2023, Lyft filed a demurrer to be heard on December 21, 2023. On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On December 14, 2023, Lyft filed a reply. 

Trial is scheduled for September 26, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Lyft requests that the Court sustain the demurrer to the third cause of action for negligence. 

Plaintiff requests that the Court 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.) 

DISCUSSION 

          In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on April 3, 2021, Plaintiff’s decedent was driving his vehicle westbound on Exposition Blvd in the City of Los Angeles. As he was crossing the intersection of Arlington Avenue, Torralva, who was transporting a Lyft passenger southbound on Arlington and using the Lyft “app,” failed to stop, entered the intersection, and caused a massive collision which took the life of Plaintiff’s decedent. 

          The third cause of action for negligence alleges that the Lyft app, which Lyft required its drivers to use, caused Torralva to be distracted and inattentive while driving.  Lyft’s requirement that drivers use the Lyft app – while knowing that drivers using the Lyft app would violate the statute requiring hands-free use of wireless communications devices while driving – allegedly breached Lyft’s duty of care and was a substantial factor in causing decedent’s death. 

          In its demurrer, Lyft argues that Plaintiff’s third cause of action is a disguised products liability claim.  According to Lyft, the third cause of action fails to satisfy the pleading requirements for a products liability claim and therefore should be dismissed.  Specifically, Lyft asserts, the Lyft app is a service, not a product.  Therefore, Plaintiff cannot state a claim for products liability. 

          Plaintiff responds that Lyft’s premise is faulty.  According to Plaintiff, the third cause of action is based on Lyft’s negligence in requiring that drivers use the Lyft app while driving despite knowing that the drivers were not using a hands-free device. 

As pleaded, Plaintiff’s third cause of action states a claim for relief.  The Court overrules the demurrer. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court OVERRULES Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s demurrer to Plaintiff Reynaldo Maradiaga complaint. 

Defendant Lyft, Inc. is ordered to file a responsive pleading 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.