Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV34032, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34032    Hearing Date: April 24, 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 Jervonne Moses (Plaintiff) sued Defendants Americana Plaza, LLC and City of Los Angeles (collectively, Defendants) based on injuries Plaintiff alleges he sustained when he tripped over a driveway apron owned, maintained, managed, and/or operated by Defendants.  Plaintiff alleges one cause of action for premises liability against Defendants. 

Defendant Americana Plaza, LLC (Americana) demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.  

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.) 

Here, Americana demurs to the sole cause of action for premises liability both for failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Americana and as uncertain.  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.)

A.    FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

            Americana argues that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently describe the premises where the incident occurred and which Americana purportedly negligently owned, maintained, managed, and operated.  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following:

plaintiff was injured on the following premises in the following fashion . . . Plaintiff Jervonne Moses was the property of Americana Plaza located at 5478 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, California going to the UPS store, as she returned to the parking lot she was on the sidewalk when a car backed up and forced Plaintiff onto the driveway apron, as she went onto the driveway apron, she tripped and fell due to a large broken apron probable cause by adjacent roots of a City of Los Angeles’ tree.

(Complaint, p. 4.)  By checking off the applicable box in the Judicial Council Pleading Form, Plaintiff further alleges that Americana negligently owned, maintained, managed, and operated the described premises.  (Complaint, p. 4.)

Americana argues that it is unable to adequately respond to Plaintiff’s claims without first being able to identify where the incident took place.  Americana contends, based on Plaintiff’s current allegations, Americana is unable to ascertain where Plaintiff’s purported trip took place and whether Americana actually maintained, controlled, and/or operated the subject premises where Plaintiff’s accident occurred.

            The Court however finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled the ultimate facts necessary to state a cause of action for premises liability against Americana by alleging that Plaintiff was injured on the subject premises, and said premises was negligently owned, maintained, managed and operated by Americana.  Ultimate facts are those “constituting the cause of action” or those upon which liability depends, e.g., duty of care, breach of the duty and causation (damages).  (See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) [1] “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff's proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872 [at pleading stage, plaintiff need not specify which of the defendant’s employees committed negligent acts or omissions].) [2]

            The Court notes that Americana’s arguments are related to the inclusion or omission of details which amount to evidentiary facts.  Yet unearthing evidentiary facts supporting a cause of action is the function of the discovery process.  (See, e.g., Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822 [“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures”]; Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285, 301 [“The purpose of pretrial discovery is to obtain all of the facts relative to a claim or defense”] .)

            Therefore, for pleading purposes, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for premises liability against Americana.

B.    UNCERTAINTY

A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the pleading is so bad that the

responding party cannot reasonably respond, i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)  Where a demurrer is made upon the ground of uncertainty, the demurrer must distinctly specify exactly how or why the pleading is uncertain, and where such uncertainty appears by reference to page and line numbers. (See Fenton v. Groveland Comm. Services Dist. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 797, 809.)

            Here, Americana also demurs to the first cause of action on the basis of uncertainty.  Here, as is discussed above, Plaintiff relies on a Judicial Council Form Complaint designed to lay out the ultimate facts of a cause of action in a clear and concise fashion.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s first cause of action for premises liability does not fail for uncertainty

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court overrules Americana’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and orders Americana to file and serve an answer to the complaint on or before May  15, 2023.

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