Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV20240, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20240    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    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

Plaintiff Chiquita Randle (Plaintiff) sued Defendants Witeby Enterprises and 1661, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) based on a trip and fall incident which occurred in a parking lot.  Defendant 1661, Inc. dba GOAT (GOAT) moves for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff’s Complaint.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  GOAT replies.

ANALYSIS

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer, but may be made after the time to demur has expired. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (f).)  “Like a demurrer, the grounds for the motion [for judgment on the pleadings] must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Civic Partners Stockton, LLC v. Youssefi (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1013.)  In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “[a]ll allegations in the complaint and matters upon which judicial notice may be taken are assumed to be true.” (Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313.)  

1. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

    

The sole issue raised by a demurrer is whether the facts pleaded state a valid cause of action – not whether they are true. Thus, no matter how unlikely or improbable, plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. (Del E. Webb v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.) The allegations of the complaint are not accepted as true, however, if they contradict or are inconsistent with facts judicially noticed by the court. (Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1474.) “The court will take judicial notice of records such as admissions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and the like, when considering a demurrer, only where they contain statements of the plaintiff or his agent which are inconsistent with the allegations of the pleading before the court.” (Del E. Webb, supra, 124 Cal.App.3d at 604-605.)

GOAT first requests the Court to take judicial notice of records from Plaintiff’s Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Case No. ADJ12254682.  (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibits 1-6.)  The Court grants GOAT’s request for judicial notice of the subject records pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).  The Court further finds that Plaintiff’s application filed with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board contains statements or admissions that are inconsistent with Plaintiff’s allegations in the Complaint regarding GOAT’s status as Plaintiff’s employer.

GOAT next requests the Court to take judicial notice of contracts between GOAT, TargetCW, and Plaintiff.  (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibits 7-8.) The Court denies GOAT’s request for judicial notice of the subject contracts because the fact a contract exists between GOAT, TargetCW, and Plaintiff is the subject of reasonable dispute.  (See Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1145-1146.)

Finally, GOAT requests the Court take judicial notice of existence of GOAT’s Online Retail Website.  The Court grants GOAT’s request for judicial notice of the existence of GOAT’s website, but not the content of such website.

1. INSUFFICIENT FACTS TO CONSTITUTE CAUSES OF ACTION

    

GOAT argues the first cause of action for negligence and the second cause of action for premises liability fail to allege facts sufficient to constitute causes of action against GOAT. “The elements of a cause of action for negligence are well established. They are (a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; [and] (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” (Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 828, 834 [cleaned up].)

The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) Therefore, to state a claim for premises liability, Plaintiff must allege: (1) defendant owned or controlled the subject property; (2) defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property; (3) plaintiff was harmed; and (4) defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. (See Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108.)

            GOAT argues that Plaintiff’s claims against GOAT are barred by the exclusive remedy rule under Labor Code section 3601, et seq.  “A general demurrer will lie where the complaint has included allegations that clearly disclose some defense or bar to recovery.” (Cryolife, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1152, internal quotes & citation omitted & emphasis in original.)  The workers’ compensation statutes are to be “liberally construed by the courts with the purpose of extending their benefits for the protections of persons injured in the course of their employment.”  (Labor Code, § 3202.)

Under Labor Code section 3602, “[w]here the conditions of compensation set forth in Section 3600 concur, the right to recover compensation is, except as specifically provided in this section and Sections 3706 and 4558, the sole and exclusive remedy of the employee or his or her dependents against the employer.”  (Labor Code, § 3602, subd. (a).)  Section 3602, subdivisions (b) and (c) set forth the exceptions to the exclusive remedy provision of subdivision (a) as follows:

1. An employee, or his or her dependents in the event of his or her death, may bring an action at law for damages against the employer, as if this division did not apply, in the following instances:

    

1. Where the employee's injury or death is proximately caused by a willful physical assault by the employer.

2. Where the employee's injury is aggravated by the employer's fraudulent concealment of the existence of the injury and its connection with the employment, in which case the employer's liability shall be limited to those damages proximately caused by the aggravation. The burden of proof respecting apportionment of damages between the injury and any subsequent aggravation thereof is upon the employer.

3. Where the employee's injury or death is proximately caused by a defective product manufactured by the employer and sold, leased, or otherwise transferred for valuable consideration to an independent third person, and that product is thereafter provided for the employee's use by a third person.

    

1. In all cases where the conditions of compensation set forth in Section 3600 do not concur, the liability of the employer shall be the same as if this division had not been enacted.

    

   (Labor Code, § 3602, subds. (b) and (c).)  Additionally, the exclusive remedy provision of Section 3602, subdivision (a) does not apply where an employer fails to secure the payment of compensation or where the employee’s injury or death is proximately caused by the employer's knowing removal of, or knowing failure to install, a point of operation guard on a power press.  (See Labor Code, §§ 3607, 4558.)

    

               Section 3600 provides, in pertinent part, the conditions of compensation as follows:

    

1. Liability for the compensation provided by this division, in lieu of any other liability whatsoever to any person except as otherwise specifically provided in Sections 3602, 3706, and 4558, shall, without regard to negligence, exist against an employer for any injury sustained by his or her employees arising out of and in the course of the employment and for the death of any employee if the injury proximately causes death, in those cases where the following conditions of compensation concur:

    

1. Where, at the time of the injury, both the employer and the employee are subject to the compensation provisions of this division.

2. Where, at the time of the injury, the employee is performing service growing out of and incidental to his or her employment and is acting within the course of his or her employment.

3. Where the injury is proximately caused by the employment, either with or without negligence.

4. Where the injury is not caused by the intoxication, by alcohol or the unlawful use of a controlled substance, of the injured employee. As used in this paragraph, “controlled substance” shall have the same meaning as prescribed in Section 11007 of the Health and Safety Code.

5. Where the injury is not intentionally self-inflicted.

6. Where the employee has not willfully and deliberately caused his or her own death.

7. Where the injury does not arise out of an altercation in which the injured employee is the initial physical aggressor.

8. Where the injury is not caused by the commission of a felony, or a crime which is punishable as specified in subdivision (b) of Section 17 of the Penal Code, by the injured employee, for which he or she has been convicted.

9. Where the injury does not arise out of voluntary participation in any off-duty recreational, social, or athletic activity not constituting part of the employee's work-related duties, except where these activities are a reasonable expectancy of, or are expressly or impliedly required by, the employment. The administrative director shall promulgate reasonable rules and regulations requiring employers to post and keep posted in a conspicuous place or places a notice advising employees of the provisions of this subdivision. Failure of the employer to post the notice shall not constitute an expression of intent to waive the provisions of this subdivision.

    

   (Labor Code, § 3600, subd. (a).)  Finally, section 5300, subdivision (a), states that proceedings “[f]or the recovery of compensation, or concerning any right or liability arising out of or incidental thereto” “shall be instituted before the [Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board] and not elsewhere, except as otherwise provided in Division 4….”  (Labor Code, § 5300, subd. (a).)

    

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the exclusive remedy provision under the Labor Code does not apply here because Plaintiff does not allege in the complaint GOAT was her employer at the time of the subject incident.  Moreover, Plaintiff argues that the Order Approving Compromise and Release denotes “WMBE Payroll, Inc., dba Target CW” as Plaintiff’s employer, not GOAT.  (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibits 5-6.)     

Based upon the lack of an allegation in the complaint that GOAT was Plaintiff’s employer when the subject incident occurred; the ambiguity stemming from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board records as to whether GOAT is or was found to be Plaintiff’s employer at time of the underlying injury; and no indication that proceedings are pending before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board vis-à-vis any claim between Plaintiff and GOAT for benefits under the Labor Code, the Court cannot determine as a matter of law that Labor Code section 3602 bars Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action regarding GOAT.  At best, the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board records infers that Plaintiff may have initially determined that GOAT was her employer when the subject incident occurred, but the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board determined later, or the parties agreed, that WMBE Payroll, Inc., dba Target CW was Plaintiff’s employer for purposes of compensation under the Labor Code.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies GOAT’s motion for judgment on the pleadings of Plaintiff’s Complaint.  GOAT shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.