Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 21STCV27564, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV27564, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27564 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: 30

ARMINDA GARCIA HERNANDEZ, et al. vs HELENA A. DODYS

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law ….” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525).) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters; therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.)

Discussion

As an initial matter, the meet and confer requirement has been met. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41.)

Defendant demurs to the complaint, arguing that the complaint does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts as to how the Defendant was negligent, but rather only made conclusory statements.

The elements for negligence are: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. (See County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)

The Court finds that the complaint pleads facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence. Notably, a plaintiff need only allege negligence in general terms, which means that it is sufficient to allege that an act was negligently done without stating the particular omission which rendered it negligent. (McBride v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 113, 119.) Here, the form complaint alleges that the acts of defendant were negligent, the acts were the legal (proximate) cause of injuries and damages to Plaintiff and the acts occurred on or about August 14, 2020 at Southbound Aviation Bl. and Carnegie Lane, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 / at said time and place Defendants, and each of them, so negligently, operated, controlled, maintained, and entrusted a motor vehicle, a 2008 Toyota #GA PSW1839, and employed & contracted with the operator of same, so as to cause a collision with the motor vehicle driven by Plaintiff Arminda Garcia Hernandez, a 2020 Chevrolet #CA 67117Z2, and occupied by other Plaintiffs, resulting in injuries and property damage to Plaintiffs. Further, the form complaint alleges that Dodys operated the vehicle, and Dodys and Does 5-6 owned the vehicle, and Does 7-8 entrusted the vehicle. These allegations, under liberal pleading standards are sufficient to state a cause of action.

The Court notes that the Moving Party fails to provide any law or authority to support its position that Plaintiff’s use of a judicial council form for her complaint renders the pleading inadequate. The Moving Party cites to People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th in support of its argument that a form complaint is insufficient without including specific allegations. However, People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court held that only in cases which involve a public entity, such that specific allegations are required to be alleged, a form complaint may be insufficient and the plaintiff must add further details. (Id., at 5 Cal.App.4th 1486.) Here, neither Defendant is not a public entity and therefore, the complaint is not required to plead facts beyond the form complaint.

Next, Defendant argues the form complaint is not completed and ambiguous because it states “Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult” and lists no exceptions, then multiple Plaintiffs are bringing their claim through guardian ad litem. A special demurrer for uncertainty, Code of Civil Procedure §430.10(f), is strictly construed and will only be sustained where the respondent cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Moreover, even if the pleading is somewhat vague, “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.)

However, as Defendant notes, multiple Plaintiffs are bringing their claim through guardian ad litem, which shows there is no ambiguity, and that there are minors involved. Moreover, even if the pleading is somewhat vague, “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.