Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 25CHCV00021, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25CHCV00021 Hearing Date: April 3, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 4/3/25
Case #25CHCV00021
DEMURRER TO THE
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Demurrer filed on 3/6/25.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant T.H. Investments, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Avo
Kozukarayan, Sako Manougian and Eddie Edmond Ouzounian
NOTICE: ok
Demurrer is to the entire complaint:
1. Premises Liability
2. Negligence and
Negligent Hiring,
Security, Training, Supervision and/or Retention
RULING: The demurrer is overruled. Answer is due within 30 days.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of an incident that occurred on
3/18/23 between patrons of Drifters Bar and Pizzeria which is located at or
near 25850 Tournament Rd., Valencia, CA 91355 (the Premises). (Complaint ¶11). Plaintiffs Avo Kozukarayan, Sako Manougian
and Eddie Edmond Ouzounian (collectively, Plaintiffs) allege that as they were
getting ready to leave the Premises, they were attacked by other patrons and
the attack continued once Plaintiffs exited the Premises. (Id. ¶¶12-13). Plaintiffs allege that security guards at the
Premises did not intervene to stop the attack altercation. (Id. ¶13). Plaintiffs allege that defendants, including
T.H. Investments, LLC (T.H. Investments) owned, leased, occupied, controlled
the Premises and their negligence was a substantial factor in causing
Plaintiffs’ injuries. (Id. ¶¶14-16,
18, 20, 23, 36).
On 1/3/25, Plaintiffs filed this action against T.H.
Investments and others alleging causes of action for: (1) Premises Liability
and (2) Negligence and Negligent Hiring, Security, Training, Supervision and/or
Retention. After meet and confer efforts
failed to resolve the issues T.H. Investments has with the complaint, on
3/6/25, T.H. Investments filed and served the instant demurrer to the entire complaint. (Abrams Decl.). Plaintiffs have opposed the demurrer. T.H. Investments have not filed a reply to
the opposition.
ANALYSIS
T.H. Investments’ Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) is
granted.
In ruling on a demurrer, a court should construe the
allegations in the complaint and any reasonable inferences raised therein as
admitted. Del E. Webb Corp.
(1981) 123 CA3d 593, 604. A demurrer is
not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts
and/or a plaintiff’s ability to support the allegations made in the complaint
at trial. Cruz (1985) 173 CA3d
1131; Meyer (1979) 88 CA3d 176.
A plaintiff need only allege the essential facts to
notify the defendant of the nature, source and extent of the plaintiff’s cause
of action. Ludgate Ins. Co., Ltd.
(2000) 82 CA4th 592, 608. Normally,
specific details regarding a plaintiff’s claim can be uncovered during the
discovery process. Id.
A claim for premises liability is based on the possession
of premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises which
imposes an affirmative duty to act. Kesner
(2016) 1 C5th 1132, 1158. “‘A possessor
of land who holds it open to the public for entry for his business purposes is
subject to liability to members of the public while they are upon the land for
such a purpose, for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or
intentionally harmful acts of third persons or animals, and by the failure of
the possessor to exercise reasonable care to (a) discover that such acts are
being done or are likely to be done, or (b) give a warning adequate to enable
the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it.”’ Taylor (1966) 65 C2d 114, 124 quoting
Restatement of Torts, §344.
The special relationship between a business establishment
and is customers, other invitees and employees places an affirmative duty on
the proprietor to exercise due care to protect patrons and employees from
reasonably anticipated criminal conduct by unknown third parties. Delgado (2005) 36 C4th 224, 234-235,
244-247; Morris (2005) 36 C4th 260, 269, 271-273, 277-278; Ann M.
(1993) 6 C4th 666, 674-675 disapproved on other grounds by Reid (2010)
50 C4th 512, 527, fn.5.
The demurrer is based on the false premise that the
complaint establishes “that Drifters Bar and Pizzeria is a tenant of TH
Investments LLC” and the incident occurred within the tenant’s ‘Subject
Premises.’” (See Demurrer,
p.4:8-11). The complaint does not allege
that Drifters Bar and Pizzeria is a tenant of T.H. Investments or that the
incident occurred within the tenant’s premises.
Rather, Plaintiffs have alleged that all defendants were owners,
operators, maintainers and/or controllers of the Premises. (See Complaint ¶¶15, 23). Plaintiffs have also alleged that T.H.
Investments failed to exercise due care in the ownership, operation and
security of the Premises to protect
Plaintiffs, and other patrons, from harm and ensure that patrons were not
subject to unreasonable risk of harm, injury and violence while on the
premises. (Complaint ¶36). The complaint alleges that T.H. Investments’
breaches of its duties caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.
The allegations in the complaint must be taken as true on
demurrer. Careau & Co. (1990)
222 CA3d 1371, 1381; Del E. Webb, Corp., supra. The information contained in T.H.
Investments’ Request for Judicial Notice merely supports Plaintiffs’ allegation
that T.H. Investments owned the property; however, it does not establish as a
matter of law that T.H. Investments did not operate, maintain and/or control
the Premises where the incident occurred.
Additionally, as noted above, Plaintiffs have alleged that the attack
continued after they exited Drifters Bar and Pizzeria. (Complaint ¶13).
Based on the foregoing, the complaint alleges sufficient
facts to support claims for premises liability and/or negligence, negligent
hiring, security, training, supervision and/or retention. The truth of any such allegations cannot be
determined based on the allegations in the pleading and/or the facts in the
request for judicial notice. Any
uncertainties regarding the facts surrounding the incident can be resolved
through discovery.
CONCLUSION
The demurrer is overruled. Answer is due within 30 days.