Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV02854, Date: 2024-06-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02854    Hearing Date: June 26, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: June 26, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

(2) Demurrers to Complaint and Motions to Strike

Moving Party: Defendants Christopher R. Phelps, Salt’s Cure, LLC, Highland Equities, LLC and Shahryar Ravanshena

Responding Party: Plaintiff Eboni Haynes

T/R:     DEFENDANTS DEMURRERS ARE OVERRULED.

THE MOTIONS TO STRIKE ARE GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE RESPONSES WITHIN 30 DAYS THEREAFTER.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition and reply.

BACKGROUND

On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff Eboni Haynes sued against Defendants Christopher R. Phelps, Salt’s Cure, LLC, Highland Equities, LLC, and Shahryar Ravanshena, asserting causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) gross negligence; and (3) premises liability. Plaintiff alleges she was dining at Defendants’ restaurant, Salt’s Cure, when she was struck by an unsecured, heavy wooden beam.

ANALYSIS

A. Demurrers to Complaint

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

Defendants demur to the complaint on the ground that it fails to state sufficient facts, contains duplicative causes of action, and fails to join necessary parties.

To plead a cause of action for negligence, one must allege (1) a legal duty owed to plaintiffs to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal. App. 4th 292, 318.) “In order to state a cause of action for negligence, the complaint must allege facts sufficient to show a legal duty on the part of the defendant to use due care, a breach of such legal duty, and the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” (Bellah v. Greenson (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 614, 619.)  In California, negligence may be pleaded in general terms. (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 407-408.)

Plaintiff alleges Defendants, the owners and operators of the Salt’s Cure restaurant and premises, owed Plaintiff a duty as a business invitee to maintain the premises in safe condition, Defendants breached that duty by allowing an unsecured heavy beam to rest on the premises near customers, and this breach caused Plaintiff severe personal injury. This is sufficient to allege causes of action for negligence, gross negligence, and premises liability.

The Court declines to sustain the demurrer based on the argument that the claims are duplicative. Plaintiff may allege different theories of liability under the same facts. Similarly, the Court will not sustain the demurrer for failure to join the person who knocked the beam over. Plaintiff has alleged facts showing Defendants’ placement of the beam and failure to inspect the premises were negligent acts in themselves.

Defendants’ demurrers to the complaint are OVERRULED.

B. Motions to Strike

Any party, within the time allowed to response to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part" of that pleading. (CCP § 435(b)(1).) “The Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading; (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the Court." (CCP § 436.)

Punitive damages are available in noncontract cases where the defendant is guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice.”  (Civil Code § 3294(a).)  Conclusory allegations are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.  (See, e.g., Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal. App. 3d 590, 620.)  However, “the stricken language must be read not in isolation, but in the context of the facts alleged in the rest of petitioner's complaint.”  (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal. App. 3d 1, 6.)

Defendants move to strike the claims for punitive damages on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege malice, oppression, or fraud with the requisite specificity. The Court agrees. Though the general allegations of the complaint are sufficient for negligence claims, specific facts are necessary to support punitive damages. That Defendants negligently left an unsecured beam on the premises and failed to inspect the premises does not in itself show malice, oppression, or fraud.

The motions to strike are GRANTED.