Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 24STCV07241, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV07241, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV07241 Hearing Date: September 19, 2024 Dept: 61

JORGE ALAMILLA PEREZ, et al. vs JESUS DANIEL BENITEZ

TENTATIVE

Defendant Jesus Daniel Benitez’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant is ordered to file an answer within 20 days of this Order.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

DISCUSSION

A demurrer should be sustained only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 430.30, et seq.) In particular, as is relevant here, a court should sustain a demurrer if a complaint does not allege facts that are legally sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See id. § 430.10, subd. (e).) As the Supreme Court held in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311: “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . . . Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Id. at p. 318; see also Hahn. v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 [“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. [Citation.]”)

“In determining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer … if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639.)

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Such demurrers “are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848.)

A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1081.) The demurrer also may be sustained without leave to amend where the nature of the defects and previous unsuccessful attempts to plead render it probable plaintiff cannot state a cause of action. (Krawitz v. Rusch (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 957, 967.)

Defendant Jesus Daniel Benitez (Defendant) demurrers to the Complaint of Jorge Alamilla Perez and Jenny Colindres Morales (Plaintiffs) on the grounds that it states no facts sufficient to support the motor vehicle negligence claim that it alleges. (Demurrer at p. 6.)

The negligence claim alleged in the Complaint is factually sparse, but adequate to survive demurrer. The elements of negligence are: “(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, (2) the defendant breached that duty, and (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's damages or injuries.” (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 62.) The Complaint here alleges that Plaintiffs were injured on January 4, 2023, at the intersection of Spring and Aliso Streets in Los Angeles, by Defendant’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle. (Complaint at p. 4.) Plaintiffs seek damages for wage loss, loss of use of property, , hospital and medical expenses, general damage, property damage, and loss of earning capacity. (Complaint at p. 3.)

Defendant objects that Plaintiffs have not pleaded “any facts that identify what Defendant’s alleged negligent acts actually were or how such acts breached a duty owed to Plaintiffs.” (Demurrer at p. 6.) Defendant identifies no authority showing that such pleading is required, and what authority exists suggests it is not: “Negligence may be generally pleaded and the enumeration of specific negligent acts in a complaint does not limit the plaintiff's proof at trial unless that is the pleader's clear intent.” (McCoy v. Gustafson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 56, 102.) While a negligence plaintiff “must indicate the acts or omissions which are said to have been negligently performed,” the Complaint here is reasonably read to state that Defendant’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle (or entrustment of a motor vehicle to another Doe defendant) caused Plaintiff’s injury at the time and place in question.(Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 527; Complaint at p. 4.) The Complaint is not so vague that Defendant “cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan., supra,14 Cal.App.5th at p. 848.)

The demurrer is OVERRULED.