Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV16788, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16788    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiffs Oscar Alegria, Andy Lopez, and Jessica Lezama (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued defendants The Hertz Corporation and Thrifty Car Rental (collectively, “Defendants”) based on a motor vehicle collision.  Defendants demur to the second cause of action for declaratory relief in Plaintiffs’ complaint.  Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the demurrer.

ANALYSIS

“It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.”  (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  In ruling on a demurrer, the court must “liberally construe[]” the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.) 

            Defendants argue the second cause of action for declaratory relief fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  Specifically, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have not cited any statute requiring Defendants to provide uninsured motorist coverage nor facts indicating such coverage exists under Defendants’ applicable coverage. 

Moreover, the Court notes that declaratory relief is an equitable remedy, not a cause of action.  (Faunce v. Cate (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 166, 173.) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court sustains Defendants’ demurrer to the second cause of action in Plaintiffs’ complaint without leave to amend.[1]  The Court orders Defendants to file and serve an answer to the complaint within 20 days of the hearing.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.