Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV00596, Date: 2025-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00596    Hearing Date: February 3, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 2/3/25

Case #24CHCV00596

 

DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

 

Demurrer filed on 11/8/24.   

 

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendants Bryan Antunez Cabrera, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Griselda Cabrera Gonzalez, and Melanie Antunez Rendon, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Rosa Gutierrez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants and Cross-Complainants All Outdoor Go Construction, Inc. and Angel Reyes Martinez

NOTICE: ok

 

Demurrer is to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd causes of action in the cross-complaint:

            1.  Contractual Indemnity

            2.  Declaratory Relief

            3.  Equitable Indemnity

 

RELIEF REQUESTED IN DEMURRER: An order sustaining the demurrer to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd causes of action in the cross-complaint without leave to amend.

 

RULING: The demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend as to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd causes of action in the cross-complaint.   

 

SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of payment of workers’ compensation benefits. Plaintiff Oak River Insurance Company, administered by Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies (“Plaintiff”) alleges that it conducts business in the State of California for the purpose of insuring employees against liability for compensation and medical payments made under and pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Safety Act.  (See Compl., ¶ 1.)  Plaintiff was the workers’ compensation insurance carrier for Oak Springs Nursery “the employer of Martin Rendon, Jonathan Gonzales and Oliver Tinoco . . . on October 28, 2022.” (See Compl., ¶ 2.)  On or about October 28, 2022, the employees were parked, setting cones, and preparing for work along Sesnon Boulevard in the City of Los Angeles when their vehicle was struck by Defendants’ vehicle.  (Compl., ¶ 6.)  The employees were injured as a result of the collision.  (Compl., ¶¶ 6-7.)  The employees were performing their duties as employees of Oak Springs Nursery when they sustained the injuries complained of in the complaint.  (Compl., ¶ 8.) The employees made a demand for compensation payments from their employer, Oak Springs Nursery.  (Compl., ¶ 9.)  Plaintiff did assume and agreed to pay, and has paid, and has become obligated to pay, compensation for which the employer was liable as a result of the employees’ injuries under the terms of the Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Safety Act of the State of California.  (Compl., ¶ 9.)  The dependents of Martin Redon have made claims for death benefits and burial expenses.  (Compl., ¶ 9.)

 

On 2/27/24, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants All Outdoor Go Construction, Inc. (“AOGCI”), Angel Reyes Martinez (“Martinez”), and Does 1-20, inclusive, for: (1) Reimbursement of Workers’ Compensation Benefits.   

 

On 8/5/24, Defendant AOGCI filed an answer to the complaint. Also, on such date, AOGCI and Martinez filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Jonathan Morgan Gonzales, Oliver Tinco, Brayan Antunez Cabrera, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Griselda Cabrera Gonzalez, Melanie Antunez Cabrera, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Rosa Gutierrez, and Roes 1-25, inclusive. The cross-complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Contractual Indemnity; (2) Declaratory Relief; and (3) Equitable Indemnity.

 

Relevantly, the cross-complaint alleges the following: the complaint in this action alleges that Defendants were negligent and are responsible pursuant to California Labor Code § 3852 to reimburse Plaintiffs who are subrogated to the rights of the employees of Oak Springs Nursery, for all workers’ compensation benefits and payments awarded to the employees and dependents at the time of trial.  (Cross-Compl., ¶ 8.)  AOGCI has and continues to deny any legal responsibility for reimbursement to Plaintiff pursuant to California Labor Code § 3852 due to contractual agreements with each of the Cross-Defendants.  (Cross-Compl., ¶ 9.)

 

Cross-Defendants Bryan Antunez Cabrera, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Griselda Cabrera Gonzalez, and Melanie Antunez Rendon, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Rosa Gutierrez (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”) now demur to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd causes of action in the cross-complaint on the grounds that they do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and/or are uncertain.  CCP 430.10(e), (f). 

 

ANALYSIS

 

Initially, the Court notes that Cross-Defendants have not provided the Court with a meet and confer declaration as required by CCP § 430.41.  Cross-Defendants were required to “meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference” with Cross-Complainants prior to filing the instant demurrer.  CCP § 430.41(a).  While Cross-Complainants argue in the opposition that the demurrer should be overruled due to the lack of meet and confer, the Court will consider the demurrer on its merits.  The Court cannot overrule a demurrer on the grounds of an insufficient meet and confer process.  CCP § 430.41(a)(4).  Cross-Defendants are reminded of the need to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.

 

Additionally, Cross-Complainants heavily rely on the declaration of Roxanne Nurse in support of the opposition for the proposition that Cross-Defendants have a duty to defend and indemnify. On demurrer, however, the Court may only consider the cross-complaint’s allegations or matters which may be judicially noticed.  Blank (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.  Given that Cross-Complainants have not requested judicial notice of the purported settlement agreement between the parties, the Court will not consider the declaration of Ms. Nurse or any of the exhibits attached thereto in assessing the sufficiency of the cross-complaint.

 

 

1ST CAUSE OF ACTION – CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY

 

The elements of a cause of action for contractual indemnity are: (1) an express contractual relationship; (2) the indemnitee’s performance of that portion of the contract which gives rise to the indemnification claim; (3) the facts showing a loss within the meaning of the parties’ indemnification agreement; and (4) the amount of damages sustained.  Four Star Electric, Inc. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1379.  “The indemnitee need not allege the underlying contract had been performed in its entirety.”  Ibid., emphasis in original.

 

Cross-Complainants have failed to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for contractual indemnity.  Cross-Complainants have failed to allege their performance of the portion of the settlement agreement which gives rise to the indemnification claim, facts showing a loss within the meaning of the parties’ indemnification agreement, and the amount of damages sustained.  (Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 11-18.)   

 

Based on the foregoing, the cross-complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action for contractual indemnity.  Due to the liberal policy of allowing leave to amend and because this is only the original cross-complaint, Cross-Complainants are given the opportunity to try to cure the defects in this cause of action.   

 

2ND CAUSE OF ACTION – DECLARATORY RELIEF

 

“To qualify for declaratory relief, a party would have to demonstrate its action presented two essential elements: (1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the party’s rights or obligations.”  Jolley (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 872, 909, quotation marks and brackets omitted.

 

The Court finds that Cross-Complainants have not sufficiently alleged a cause of action for declaratory relief.  (Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 19-21.)  The declaratory relief cause of action is premised on the insufficient cause of action for contractual indemnity.  (Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 19-21.)  The cross-complaint does not articulate the nature of the controversy for which declaratory relief is sought and the matters for which a judicial declaration is sought. (Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 19-21.) Thus, the declaratory relief cause of action is uncertain as Cross-Defendants argue. 

 

Based on the foregoing, the cross-complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action for declaratory relief and is uncertain.  Due to the liberal policy of allowing leave to amend and because this is only the original cross-complaint, Cross-Complainants are given the opportunity to try to cure the defects in this cause of action.    

 

3RD CAUSE OF ACTION – EQUITABLE INDEMNITY

 

“To state a claim for equitable indemnity, a defendant must allege the same harm for which he may be held liable is properly attributable—at least in part—to the cross-defendant.” Platt (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1445, fn.7.  Equitable indemnity “is premised on a joint legal obligation to another for damages.”  C.W. Howe Partners Inc. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 688, 700.  To state a cause of action for equitable indemnity, a cross-complainant must allege the following elements: (1) a showing of fault on the part of the indemnitor and (2) resulting damages to the indemnitee for which the indemnitor is equitably responsible.  Ibid.

 

The Court finds that the third cause of action in the cross-complaint for equitable indemnity is insufficiently alleged.  (Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 22-25.)  Cross-Complainants have failed to allege that they have been damaged as they merely allege that “if Plaintiff recovers against Defendants/Cross-Complainants, then Defendants/Cross-Complainants are entitled to full indemnity from Cross-Defendants . . . .”  (Cross-Compl., ¶ 25.) Thus, Cross-Complainants have failed to allege the element of damages.

 

Due to the liberal policy of allowing leave to amend and because this is only the original cross-complaint, Cross-Complainants are given the opportunity to try to cure the defects in this cause of action.    

 

CONCLUSION

 

The demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend as to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd causes of action in the cross-complaint.