Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV02014, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV02014 Hearing Date: October 8, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCV02014 Maria E.G. Pasillas v. County of Los Angeles, et
al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER OVERRULING DEMURRER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
I.
BACKGROUND
This
action alleges Plaintiff sustained injury due to a watering hazard while at
Harbor-UCLA Medical Center (“Hospital”). Plaintiff alleges claims for
negligence and premises liability against the Hospital, County of Los Angeles
(“County” or “Defendant”), and the Regents of the University of California.
Defendant
County demurs to both causes of action on grounds Plaintiff failed to allege
facts to support either cause of action. Defense counsel met and conferred with
Plaintiff’s counsel in compliance with Code Civ. Proc., § 340.41, but the
parties were unable to resolve their issues. (Sanaz
Rashidi Decl., .pdf p. 9.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
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.) In testing the complaint’s sufficiency, the court must
assume the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations as well as facts
that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded facts. The court
may also consider matters properly subject to judicial notice. (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.) Plaintiff is required to allege facts sufficient to establish every
element of each cause of action. (Rakestraw
v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e); Zelig
v. County of Los Angeles
(2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126.)
Sufficient facts are the 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.)
A demurrer may also be sustained if a
complaint is “uncertain.” 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).)
III.
DISCUSSION
A public entity is not liable for an
injury “[e]xcept as provided by statute.” (Gov. Code § 815.) Plaintiff must allege sufficiently
detailed facts to support an inference that each of the statutory elements of
liability is satisfied. General allegations are regarded as inadequate. (Mittenhuber v. City of Redondo Beach (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1, 5.) Moreover, “[s]ince the duty of a governmental
agency can only be created by statute or ‘enactment,‘ the statute or
‘enactment‘ claimed to establish the duty must at the very least be
identified." (Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802.)
To
state a cause of action against a public entity under Government Code section
835, a plaintiff must allege facts to establish (1) the existence of a
dangerous condition that caused injury to plaintiff, (2) the condition created
a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury sustained by the plaintiff (3) and
either the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous
condition or an employee of the public entity created the condition. (Gov.
Code, § 835; Brenner
v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 439.)
The
first and cause of action refers to § 835 (Complaint, .pdf p. 4.) Contrary to
Defendant’s contentions, Plaintiff identified the dangerous condition as a
water hazard and that there were no warning signs to indicate that watering was occurring, which adequately implies
that the watering hazard created a risk of injury. (Complaint, .pdf p. 5.)
Plaintiff alleges that watering should have occurred at night or at a safer
time. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that after she fell, the
hospital shuttle driver and another person helped her. Plaintiff identifies the property where the
incident occurred (on Hospital grounds) and that the County among other
defendants negligently owned, maintained, managed and operated the premises.
(Complaint, .pdf p. 4.)
These
facts also support the contention that Defendant created the condition. The alleged facts imply that Defendant
controlled the watering which could have occurred at another time.
To be “demurrer proof” a plaintiff must allege
essential ultimate facts to state a claim. (Id.) The complaint
meets that threshold.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, demurrer to the complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant, County of
Los Angeles, is ordered to answer within 10 days.