Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV05762, Date: 2025-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05762    Hearing Date: May 5, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff Michelle Stornetta (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendants Rosewood Hotels & Resorts, LLC and Ty Warner Hotels & Resorts, LLC (“Defendants”), alleging two causes of action for (1) negligence and (2) premises liability arising from allegations that Plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell due to a concealed water trench at one of Defendants’ resorts in Mexico.  

Defendants now move for judgment on the pleadings on the fails to state a cause of action as Mexico law applies which does not recognize as cognizable negligence claims.  Plaintiff opposes the motion and Defendants reply. 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants request judicial notice of the Mexican Federal Civil Code, attached as Tab A to the Compendium of Foreign Authorities; the Mexican Federal Labor Act, attached as Tab B to the Compendium of Foreign Authorities; the Civil Code of the Mexican State of Baja California Sur; and the Mexican law set forth in paragraphs 4-15 of the Villalobos Declaration.

            Courts may take judicial notice of the law of foreign nations and public entities in foreign nations.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (f).)  Therefore, the Court takes judicial notice of the Mexican Federal Civil Code; the Mexican Federal Labor Act; and the Civil Code of the Mexican State of Baja California Sur.

            However, the Villalobos Declaration does not constitute law itself, but rather an expert’s opinion on the application of law in Mexico.  As such, the Court declines to take judicial notice of the Villalobos Declaration.

            Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice

            Plaintiff requests the Court to take Judicial Notice of the following:

·       Exhibit A: Las Ventanas al Paraiso, A Rosewood Resort’s “Press Kit” available on its website, with the URL https://www.rosewoodhotels.com/en/las-ventanas-los-cabos/media/presskit/los-cabos.

·       Exhibit B: A true and correct copy of Ty Warner Hotel’s & Resort’s Limited Liability Company Application for Registration dated January 15, 2002. The Limited Liability Company Application for Registration is a record of the Office of the Secretary of State, of the State of California.

·       Exhibit C: A true and correct copy of Ty Warner Hotel’s & Resort’s Statement of Information for 2003 dated June 19, 2003. The Statement of Information for 2003 is a record of the Office of the Secretary of State, of the State of California.

·       Exhibit D: A true and correct copy of Ty Warner Hotel’s & Resort’s Statement of Information for 2021 dated November 22, 2021. The Statement of Information for 2021 is a record of the Office of the Secretary of State, of the State of California.

·       Exhibit E: A true and correct copy of Ty Warner Hotels & Resorts’ website, with the URL https://tywarnerhotelsandresorts.com.

·       Exhibit F: A true and correct copy of Ty Warner Hotels & Resorts’ Connoisseur Club Brochure available on Ty Warner Hotels & Resorts’ website, with the URL www.tywarnerhotelsandresorts.com.

·       Exhibit G: A true and correct copy of Rosewood Hotels & Resorts’ Limited Liability Company Application for Registration dated November 4, 1997. The Limited Liability Company Application for Registration is a record of the Office of the Secretary of State, of the State of California.

·       Exhibit H: A true and correct copy of Rosewood Hotels & Resorts’ Statement of Information for 2021 dated November 3, 2021. The Statement of Information for 2021 is a record of the Office of the Secretary of State, of the State of California.

·       Exhibit I: A true and correct copy of Rosewood Hotels & Resorts’ Statement of Information for 2023 dated November 15, 2023. The Statement of Information for 2023 is a record of the Office of the Secretary of State, of the State of California.

·       Exhibit J: A true and correct copy of the January 5, 2024 Proof of Service on file with the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 23SMCV05762.

·       Exhibit K: A true and correct copy of the March 20, 2024 Minute Order on file with the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 23SMCV05762.

            However, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any of the above exhibits.  Therefore, the Court does not take judicial notice of them.

LEGAL STANDARD – JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

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.) 

ANALYSIS

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “carelessly and negligently owned, operated, maintained, repaired and controlled” the Mexico premises “in a dangerous, defective and unsafe condition” that made them “unsafe and dangerous to invitees thereon such as and including Plaintiff.”  (Complaint ¶ 12.)

            Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged causes of action for negligence and premises liability, based in California law.  But the laws for maintaining premises in California do not extend to premises located in Mexico.  Although California has an interest in protecting its own citizens from harm, California cannot impose additional regulations, restrictions, or legal requirements on the maintenance of real properties located entirely in other countries, even if those properties are advertised to residents of California.  Mexican law controls the regulation and maintenance of properties located in Mexico.

            Here, Mexican law differs from California law in that there is no “negligence” or “premises liability” as those causes of action exist in California.  Rather, Mexico has a civil law code system and “illicit acts” statutes that holds liable anyone “acting illicitly or against the good customs” who causes damage to another, unless the damage was the result of the victim’s fault or inexcusable negligence.  (Compendium of Foreign Authorities, Tab A.)  “Good customs” refers to the rules and regulations of places and times where the underlying event occurred.  (Ibid.) 

            Further, unlike California law, which imposes upon those who control property a duty to warn of dangerous conditions, there is no analogous duty under Mexican law.  (Compare Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1156 with Compendium of Foreign Authorities, Tab A.)

            As such, Plaintiff’s two causes of action for “negligence” and “premises liability” based in California law for Mexican property Defendants allegedly failed to maintain, leaving it in a dangerous condition, which Defendants “failed to warn” Plaintiff about (Complaint ¶ 18) are misplaced.

LEAVE TO AMEND

A plaintiff has the burden of showing in what manner the complaint could be amended and how the amendment would change the legal effect of the complaint, i.e., state a cause of action. (See The Inland Oversight Committee v. City of San Bernardino (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 771, 779; PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v. Hulven Int'l, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 156, 189.) A plaintiff must not only state the legal basis for the amendment, but also the factual allegations sufficient to state a cause of action or claim. (See PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v. Hulven Int'l, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 189.) Moreover, a plaintiff does not meet his or her burden by merely stating in the opposition to a demurrer or motion to strike that “if the Court finds the operative complaint deficient, plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend.” (See Major Clients Agency v Diemer (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1133; Graham v. Bank of America (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 618 [asserting an abstract right to amend does not satisfy the burden].)

            Here, Plaintiff does not address whether leave to amend should be granted, should Defendants prevail on their motion.  As such, Plaintiff has not met her burden. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in its entirety without leave to amend. 

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  May 1, 2025                                                           ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court