Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV38549, Date: 2023-03-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38549    Hearing Date: March 10, 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 Hannah Chang (Plaintiff) sued Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser, LLC, The Hertz Corporation, and Joaquin Diaz (collectively, Defendants) based on injuries she alleges she sustained in a motor vehicle collision.  On May 16, 2022, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to add Defendant SGV Enterprises Inc dba SGV Construction (SGV) as Doe 1.   SGV demurs to the sole cause of action for motor vehicle negligence alleged in the Complaint.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

ANALYSIS

1.     DEMURRER

“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.) 

A.    FAILURE TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION

            SGV demurs to the first cause of action for failure to allege sufficient facts.  SGV argues that Plaintiff fails to identify any individual actions of SGV, or what type of duty it owed to Plaintiff.

The basic elements of an actionable negligence claim are: (1) a duty on the part of defendant toward plaintiff; (2) defendant’s breach of that duty; (3) and harm to the plaintiff caused by the breach. (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1142.)

The first cause of action in the complaint alleges the following:

On North Lake Street, at or near its intersection with Beverly Boulevard, in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California. At that time and place, the defendants, and each of them, whether fictitiously named or otherwise, negligently, recklessly, and carelessly owned, leased, repaired, maintained, entrusted, operated, supervised, and controlled their vehicle so as to cause defendants' vehicle to hit the Plaintiff's person thereby causing injuries and damages to Plaintiff.   

(Complaint, p. 4.)  Via the May 16, 2022 Doe Amendment, as well as the checking off of the applicable boxes in the Judicial Council Pleading Form, the Complaint further alleges that SGV was the defendant who operated a motor vehicle, employed the persons who operated a motor vehicle in the course of their employment, owned the motor vehicle which was operated with their permission, entrusted the motor vehicle, were the agents and employees of the other defendants and acted within the scope of the agency, and are liable to plaintiffs for other reasons.  (See Ibid.)

The Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently pled the ultimate facts necessary to state a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence.  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.) “[T]he complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form a part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872 [at pleading stage, plaintiff need not specify which of defendant’s employees committed negligent acts or omissions].) [1] 

Accordingly, for pleading purposes, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to constitute a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence against SGV.  

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, SGV also demurs to the first cause of action for uncertainty.  Specifically, SGV argues the first cause of action is confusing as it is undecipherable as to what duty SGV allegedly owed to Plaintiff.  Nor does it identify specific negligent acts of SGV.  Instead, Plaintiff groups all Defendants together.  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.  Further Plaintiff is entitled to plead in the alternative. (Mendoza v. Continental Sales Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1402.)  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s first cause of action for motor vehicle negligence does not fail for uncertainty.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court overrules SGV’s demurrer to the first cause of action in the Complaint.  SGV shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.