Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01137, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 23CMCV01137 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCV01137 Jose Miguel Lim IV v. City of Carson, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint
alleges that Plaintiff sustained injuries after driving his vehicle over a
pothole and/or a defect in the roadway which constituted a dangerous condition.
Plaintiff alleges a cause of action for premises liability and dangerous
condition of public property.
Defendant,
City of Carson (“City”) demurs to the complaint on grounds Plaintiff did not
allege an injury-producing event. The condition of the roadway alone does not
explain how Plaintiff was injured.
City
timely served Plaintiff with the demurrer on June 27, 2024. Plaintiff did not
file an opposition.
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The
bases for demurrer are limited by statute and may be sustained for reasons
including failure to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action and
uncertainty as well as for misjoinder of parties.(Code
Civ. Proc., § 430.10 subd. (d).) A
demurrer “tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises
only questions of law.” (Schmidt
v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.)
The
court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations;
(2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3)
judicially noticed matters. (Blank
v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The court may not
consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore
v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638.)
III.
DISCUSSION
A public entity is liable for injuries caused
by a public entity employee, who within the scope of employment, caused injury
because of the employee’s act or omission. (Gov.
Code, § 815.2.) Section 835 imposes liability on a public entity for injury
caused by a dangerous condition where either a public entity employee within
the scope of employment created the dangerous condition, or the public entity
had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and failed to
protect against it in a reasonable amount of time. (Gov.
Code, § 835 subd. (a) and (b).) Section 835 is the sole statutory basis for
imposing liability on public entities as property owners. (Summerfield
v. City of Inglewood (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 983, 993.)
In
order to state a claim for liability under Section 835, Plaintiff must plead
and prove that “(1) a dangerous condition existed on the public property at the
time of the injury; (2) the condition proximately caused the injury; (3) the
condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury
sustained; and (4) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the
dangerous condition of the property in a sufficient time to have taken measures
to protect against it." (Brenner
v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 439.)
Plaintiff
alleges facts that support each element of the claim. (Complaint, page 4.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had actual
and constructive notice of the dangerous condition existing on public property
allegedly owned and controlled by Defendant and that Defendant’s employees
created the dangerous condition. (Complaint, ¶¶ L-4.) The injury producing
event is the defective roadway that was left unprotected and caused injury when
Plaintiff drove over it on his vehicle. (Id.) Defendant
does not cite authority that requires Plaintiff to more specifically allege how
the condition caused injury. A complaint is sufficient if Plaintiff alleges essential
facts of the case "with reasonable precision and with particularity that
is sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and
extent of his cause of action.” (Gressley
v. Williams (1961) 193
Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.) Whether the
Plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant. (Stevens
v. Superior Court (1986) 180
Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.)
While a demurrer may be sustained if a
complaint is “uncertain,” such uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual
allegations are so confusing, they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of
the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams
v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2; Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(f).) Moreover, demurrers for uncertainty are strictly
construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, “because
ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)
IV.
CONCLUSION
The
complaint is adequately alleged. Accordingly, the City’s demurrer to the
complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant,
City of Carson, is ordered to file an answer within 10 days.