Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 24STLC05634, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STLC05634    Hearing Date: November 18, 2024    Dept: 26

Brooks v. Hope on Hyde Park, et al.

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.10, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Hope On Hyde Park, LP; MCM Property Management, Inc; and Monica Munoz’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

ANALYSIS:

On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff Lloyd Brooks (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants Hope On Hyde Park, LP, MCM Property Management, Inc., and Monica Munoz (“Defendants”). On September 24, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint. It appears that Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 5, 2024 but it is not accompanied by a proof of service showing it was served on Defendants. Therefore, the Court will not consider the opposition.

Discussion

The Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Yablow Decl., filed 09/09/24, ¶¶11-18.) Defendants demur on the grounds that the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action and uncertainty. (Notice of Demurrer, p. 1:26-28 [citing Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (f)].) Demurrers for uncertainty are not permitted in a limited jurisdiction court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).) Therefore, the Court will not consider the demurrer for uncertainty.

The Courts finds that the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action. The Complaint is set forth on Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-001 and indicates that Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence and premises liability. (Compl., ¶10.) However, beyond the name of the causes of action, the supporting factual allegations included in the Complaint are unintelligible. (Compl., pp. 4-5.)

“The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence.” (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 637, citing Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 36 P.3d 11 (Ortega).) Accordingly, the plaintiff must prove, “ ‘a legal duty to use due care, a breach of such legal duty, and the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.’ ” [Citations omitted].

(Jones v. Awad (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1200, 1207.) None of the factual allegations in the Complaint, which refers predominately to a contractual agreement, can be understood to meet these elements. Nor has Plaintiff filed a cognizable opposition to the instant Demurrer demonstrating that the Complaint includes sufficient allegations or can be amended to do so. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) Instead, the document filed by Plaintiff on November 5, 2024 appears to address the issue of service of the Complaint. Therefore, the Demurrer to the Complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

Conclusion

Defendants Hope On Hyde Park, LP; MCM Property Management, Inc; and Monica Munoz’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Court clerk to give notice.