Judge Matthew C. Braner, Case Number: 37-2023-00026809-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00026809-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024

06/14/2024 09:00:00 AM C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00026809-CU-PO-CTL REYNOSO VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant State of California (by and through the Department of Transportation)'s motion to strike is GRANTED.

As a preliminary matter, the court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff Judy Reynoso failed to serve a copy of her opposition on Defendant. (ROA #41, p. 7 [only Defendant City of National City listed on proof of service].) The court considers this no different than a late-filed paper, and therefore declines to consider it. (CRC 3.1300, subd. (d).) A court may strike 'any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.' (Code Civ. Proc., � 436, subd. (a).) 'The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.' (Code Civ. Proc., � 437, subd.

(a).) An 'irrelevant matter' is an 'immaterial allegation,' (Code Civ. Proc., � 431.10, subd. (c)), which is '[a]n allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense,' or '[a]n allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense.' (Code Civ. Proc., � 431.10, subd. (b).) Conversely, a 'material allegation' is one that is 'essential to the claim or defense and which could not be stricken from the pleading without leaving it insufficient as to that claim or defense.' (Code Civ. Proc., � 431.10, subd. (a).) Here, Plaintiff brings a single cause of action for dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835. However, Plaintiff includes allegations that Defendant and its employees owed a duty of care to foreseeable user of its property, like Plaintiff, and breached that duty of care and 'were negligent, reckless, careless, and unreasonable in their acts.' (Complaint, �� 8-9.) Plaintiff also makes references to Government Code sections 815.2, 815.4, 820(a), and 840, none of which relate to a premises liability claim under Government Code section 835. (Complaint, � 13.) Defendant argues these allegations are immaterial to Plaintiff's single cause of action under section 835, and if Plaintiff intends to plead a claim for negligence, it must be pleaded as a separate cause of action. The court agrees.

First, to state a claim for premises liability under Government Code section 835, Plaintiff must plead and prove: (1) Defendant owned or controlled the property, (2) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, (3) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the type of harm that occurred, (4) Defendant had notice of the condition for a long enough time to repair the condition, or a negligent or wrongful act of Defendant's employee within the scope of his or her employment created the dangerous condition; (5) Plaintiff was harmed, and (6) the condition was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's harm. (Gov. Code, � 835; see also CACI No. 1100.) Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3109537 21 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: REYNOSO VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 37-2023-00026809-CU-PO-CTL Absent from the above elements is any reference or need to plead or prove duty or breach. Although a 'negligent or wrongful act or omission' is referenced, such reference is specific to creation of the dangerous condition. Unlike this separate and distinct usage, Plaintiff alleges a direct duty owed by Defendant and its employees to her, and a breach of that duty that directly caused her harm. In effect, Plaintiff has attempted to plead a general negligence cause of action, buttressed by her references to Government Code sections 815.2, 815.4, 820(a), and 840. Thus, the portions of the complaint referenced in Defendant's notice of motion are immaterial and must be stricken.

Second, the California Rules of Court require that '[e]ach separately stated cause of action, count, or defense must specifically state: (1) Its number (e.g., 'first cause of action'); (2) Its nature (e.g., 'for fraud'); (3) The party asserting it if more than one party is represented on the pleading (e.g., 'by plaintiff Jones'); and (4) The party or parties to whom it is directed (e.g., 'against defendant Smith').' (CRC 2.112.) Negligence and premises liability are separate causes of action with separate elements grounded in distinct Government Code sections. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff has attempted to plead a negligence cause of action, it must comply with Rule 2.112 of the California Rules of Court.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to strike is granted.

Once the tentative is confirmed, the court will sign Defendant's proposed order.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3109537 21