Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV23373, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23373    Hearing Date: February 3, 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

Plaintiffs Arman Zhamkochyan and Suzie Zhamkochyan-Apple (collectively, Plaintiffs) sued Defendant Foothill Executive Limousine Inc. (Defendant) based on a motor-vehicle incident which led to injuries sustained by Decedent Andranik Zhamkochyan.  Defendant demurs to the Complaint.  Plaintiffs opposes the demurrer.  Defendant replies.   

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.) 

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed on principles of laches and delay in prosecution. 

First, the Court finds Defendant’s argument that Plaintiffs have been dilatory in prosecuting the complaint to be unmeritorious.  (See generally Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.410, 583.420.)  Plaintiffs’ action was commenced on June 23, 2021 and thus discretionary dismissal of the action is not warranted under the Code of Civil Procedure. 

Second, “Laches is an unreasonable delay in asserting an equitable right, causing prejudice to an adverse party such as to render the granting of relief to the other party inequitable.  . . . [but] the laches defense is unavailable in an action at law for damages even though combined with the cumulative remedy of declaratory relief.”  (Wells Fargo Bank v. Bank of America (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 424, 439 [cleaned up]; see also Reid v. City of San Diego (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 343, 362 [“laches does not apply as a defense to causes of action seeking money judgments, even where joined with claims in equity”].)  Here, as alleged in the complaint, Plaintiffs are seeking money damages against Defendant, not equitable relief of any form.  (See Complaint, Prayer for Damages.)  Therefore, the Court finds Defendant’s arguments based on laches to be misplaced.  

Further the Court notes that Defendant’s demurrer relies extensively on declarations and exhibits outside of the four corners of the complaint, which the Court cannot consider on demurrer.  “The purpose of a general demurrer is to determine the sufficiency of the complaint and the court should only rule on matters disclosed in that pleading.”  (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.)  As such, “in reviewing the ruling on a demurrer, a court cannot consider, as Mercury would have us do, the substance of declarations, matter not subject to judicial notice, or documents judicially noticed but not accepted for the truth of their contents.”  (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court overrules Defendant’s demurrer and orders Defendant to file and serve an answer to the Complaint within 20 days of the hearing.

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