Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV23527, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23527    Hearing Date: December 16, 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

MOTIONS

Plaintiff Aiza Catzim (Plaintiff) sued Defendant Century Towers Association, a California Corporation (Defendant) based on a slip and fall incident.  Defendant demurs to both the first and second causes of action asserted in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.  Defendant also moves to strike the portion of the Complaint seeking prejudgment interest.  Plaintiff opposes the motion and demurer.  Defendant replies.

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.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence and premises liability fail to state causes of action and are uncertain.  Specifically, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence and premises liability are conclusory, and lacking material facts in support of the allegations made. 

The elements of a cause of action for negligence are: (1) a duty on the part of defendant toward plaintiff; (2) defendant’s breach of that duty; and (3) harm to the plaintiff caused by that breach. (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1142.)  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.)  Further, to prevail on a claim for premises liability, a plaintiff must prove: (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.)          

Plaintiff’s first cause of action for negligence alleges the following:

• “Defendants owned, occupied, operated, maintained, and controlled the property.  Defendants were negligent in the use and maintenance of the property and allowed a dangerous condition to exist there at.  Defendants were negligent and failed to warn Plaintiff regarding the existence of said condition despite Defendants having actual and/or constructive notice of the same.  Defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff.”  (Complaint, p. 4.)

Plaintiff’s second cause of action for premises liability sets forth the following:

• “Plaintiff slipped and fell in the common area just outside the entrance to the east Century Tower due to unsafe, slippery conditions, sustaining personal injuries as a result including injuries to her shoulder, back, and thumb.”  (Complaint, p. 5.)
• Century Towers Association negligently owned, maintained, managed and operated the described premises.  (Complaint, p. 5.)
• Century Towers Association willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity.  (Complaint, p. 5.)
• Century Towers Association owned public property on which a dangerous condition existed; Century Towers Association had constructive notice of the existence of the dangerous condition in sufficient time prior to the injury to have corrected it; the condition was created by employees of Century Towers Association.  (Complaint, p. 5.)

Preliminarily, the Court notes the Complaint alleges Plaintiff’s negligence causes of action and premises liability against Defendant is predicated upon Defendant’s alleged ownership, operation, or control of the subject premises which raises a duty of care on the part of Defendant.  Further, upon review of the complaint, altogether and in context, for pleading purposes, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges sufficient ultimate facts to constitute a premises liability cause of action.  Ultimate facts are those “constituting the cause of action” or those upon which liability depends. (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].) 

The Court therefore overrules the demurrer to the first and second causes of action for negligence and premises liability for failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  In short, Plaintiff has alleged the ultimate facts of duty of care, breach of the duty of care and causation. 

1. MOTION TO STRIKE

            Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).) On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subds. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for prejudgment interest.  Plaintiff argues she has an absolute right to recovery of prejudgment interest as part of their damages award under Civil Code section 3287. That section provides:

“A person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in the person upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except when the debtor is prevented by law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt. This section is applicable to recovery of damages and interest from any debtor, including the state or any county, city, city and county, municipal corporation, public district, public agency, or any political subdivision of the state.”

(Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (a).)

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for prejudgment interest.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court overrules Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s first cause of action for negligence and second cause of action for premises liability.  Additionally, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for prejudgment interest. 

Defendant shall file and serve an Answer to the Complaint on or before January 6, 2023. 

The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.