Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV21498, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV21498    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 27, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendants Southern California Edison Company and Tyler Treffry

Responding Party: None

T/R:      DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED. THE DEMURRER TO THE REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION IS OVERRULED.

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS 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, oppositions, and replies.

BACKGROUND

On January 28, 2025, Plaintiff Sami Ammari filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Southern California Edison Company and Tyler Treffrey, asserting causes of action for (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory judgment; (3) negligence; and (4) UCL violations. Plaintiff alleges that he requested from Defendant SCE a distribution line and service extension for the property located at 5939 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90805 to initiate electrical service, and SCE wrongfully refused.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants’ requests for judicial notice of exhibits nos. 1-4 are DENIED as matters not subject to judicial notice.

ANALYSIS

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.)

A. Standing

Defendants demur to the entire first amended complaint on the ground that Plaintiff does not have standing to sue. In support, Defendants present the purported contract between Defendant SCEC and Plaintiff’s company Cherry Wash, Inc., SCEC Tariff Rules 11,15, and 16, and grant deeds purportedly showing Plaintiff does not own the real property at issue in this action. The Court declines to take judicial notice of the contract or Tariff Rules; they are not official documents subject to judicial notice. Defendants do not present authority showing Plaintiff must own the subject property to have standing. The demurrer cannot be sustained on these bases.

B. Jurisdiction

Defendants demur to the complaint on the ground that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the matter. Defendants assert that under section 1759(a) of the Public Utilities Code, the Court cannot review the California Public Utilities Commission decision to approve SCEC Tariff Rules 11,15, and 16, which establish the guidelines for the discontinuance and restoration of service, and the design, cost allocation, and responsibilities between a project applicant and a utility for Distribution Line and Service extensions. As stated, the Court does not take judicial notice over SCEC Tariff Rules 11,15, and 16. The demurrer cannot be sustained on this basis.

C. Negligence

Defendants demur to the third cause of action for negligence on the ground that it is barred by the economic loss rule. The Court agrees. The economic loss rule “functions to bar claims in negligence for pure economic losses in deference to a contract between litigating parties.” (Sheen v. Wells Fargo Banks (2022) N.A., 12 Cal 5th 905, 922.) Here, Plaintiff does not allege any personal injury, property damage, or fraudulent act on the part of Defendants. This cannot support a claim for the tort of negligence.

The demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED.

D. Injunctive Relief

Defendants demur to the second cause of action for injunctive relief because it is a remedy rather than a cause of action. Plaintiff may request injunctive relief. This is not grounds for demurrer.

The demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED.

E. Motion to Strike

Defendants move to strike the prayers for punitive damages on the ground that Plaintiff has not alleged Defendants acted with fraud, oppression, or malice with the requisite specificity. The Court agrees. Plaintiff alleges Defendants wrongfully refused to initiate electrical service. This does not support a claim for punitive damages.

The motion to strike is GRANTED.