Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV10806, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10806    Hearing Date: December 4, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  

BACKGROUND 

On May 12, 2023, Plaintiff Noah Fisher (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ariel Gershkovich (“Gershkovich”), Yaskov Yagukayev (“Yagukayev”), Cesar Velasquez (“Velasquez”), City of Los Angeles (“City”), Los Angeles Police Department (“Police Department”), Techiia Motorsports, Inc. (“Techiia”), Turo, Inc. (“Turo”), and Does 1-50 for negligence. 

On November 2, 2023, Turo filed a demurrer to be heard on December 4, 2023.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

Trial is scheduled for November 8, 2024. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Turo requests that the Court sustain the demurrer without leave to amend. 

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: 

* * * 

“(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.) 

DISCUSSION 

A.   The complaint 

The complaint alleges the following: 

On or about September 4, 2022, Plaintiff was driving westbound on Fifth Street through the intersection of Flower Street in the County of Los Angeles when he was involved in an accident caused by Gershkovich, Yagudayev, and Velasquez, who were negligently operating their vehicles. 

Velasquez was driving under the course and scope of his employment with City and Police Department when the accident occurred. 

Gershkovich and Yagudayev rented the vehicle involved in the accidents from Techiia through Turo’s application/software/program.  Techiia and Turo negligently rented the vehicle involved in the accident to Gershkovich and Yagudayev. 

As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff sustained injuries and damages, including personal injury damages and property damage.  Defendants’ negligence was a substantial cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 

B.   The demurrer 

Turo asks the Court to sustain the demurrer because the complaint is so uncertain that Turo cannot reasonably respond.  Aside from alleging that one of the vehicles involved in the accident was rented through Turo’s application/software/program,” the complaint does not mention Turo.  Therefore, Turo argues, the complaint against it is incomprehensible. 

C.   Analysis 

The complaint alleges that (1) Gershkovich and Yagudayev rented the vehicle involved in the accidents from Techiia through Turo’s application/software/program and (2) Techiia and Turo negligently rented the vehicle involved in the accident to Gershkovich and Yagudayev.  These allegations give Turo enough information to file an answer or other responsive pleading. 

The Court overrules the demurrer. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court OVERRULES the demurrer of Defendant Turo, Inc. 

Defendant Turo, Inc. is ordered to file an answer within 10 days of the hearing on the demurrer.      

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.