Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV02853, Date: 2025-05-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02853    Hearing Date: May 13, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV02853 Jesse Dean, et al v. Taschen America LLC, et al.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER OVERRULING DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT, RAR2 BEVERY HILLS RETAIL QRS

                                                                                              I.         BACKGROUND

      The second amended complaint alleges that on April 8, 2022, Plaintiffs were on premises owned and controlled by Defendants. Plaintiffs allegedly sustained injury when heavy art pieces fell from the ceiling and creating a dangerous condition. Plaintiffs allege one cause of action for negligence.

                                                                                               II.        ARGUMENTS

      Defendant, RAR2 Beverly Hills Retail QRS (Defendant) demurs to the claim for negligence for failure to state a claim. The complaint fails to state a location of the incident, and the bare bones allegations do not support a claim. Plaintiffs have twice amended without alleging sufficient facts to establish causation.

      In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the complaint identifies the location where Plaintiffs were injured and alleges they were injured as a result of art falling from the ceiling.

      Defendant argues in reply that the facts do not connect the dangerous condition with Plaintiffs’ injuries.

                                                                                       III.       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.4^th 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.4^th 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.4^th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. Code Three-day notice to pay rent or quit. Proc., § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4^th 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 Three-day notice to pay rent or quit. Proc., § 430.10(f).)

      A pleading is required to assert general allegations of ultimate fact. Evidentiary facts are not required. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal. 4^th 26, 47; Lim v. The.TV Corp. Internat. (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4^th 684, 690.) However, unlike federal courts, California state courts are not a notice pleading jurisdiction, and notice alone is not a sufficient basis for any pleading. California is a fact pleading jurisdiction. Merely putting an opposing party on notice is not sufficient. (Bach v. County of Butte (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 554, 561; see Diodes, Inc. v. Franzen (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 244, 250.)

                                                                                           IV.       DISCUSSION

      A negligence claim requires factual allegations showing that defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care, breach of that duty, causation and damages. (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4^th 465, 477.)  Plaintiffs must allege facts supporting the contention that Defendant owed a legal duty.  (Jones v. Grewe (1987) 189 Cal. App. 3d 950, 954.) The absence of these allegations renders a complaint fatally defective and is properly challenged by demurrer. (Id.; Hegyes v. Unjian Enterprises, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1103.)

      Premises liability is a form of negligence which imposes a duty on a premises owner to exercise ordinary care in the management of the premises to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619.) It shares all elements of a claim for ordinary negligence. (Stokes v. Forty Niners Stadium Management Co., LLC (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1199, 1216.)

      Negligence claims can be alleged in general terms by stating the acts or omissions that were negligently performed. (Greninger v. Fischer (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 549, 552; Guilliams v. Hollywood Hospital (1941) 18 Cal.2d 97, 101.)

      Plaintiffs allege Defendants owned and controlled a building located in Los Angeles. (SAC ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs were patrons. (SAC ¶ 7.) Defendants were negligent in operating and maintaining the building so as to cause Plaintiffs’ substantial injuries, specifically by failing to provide a safe ceiling with heavy art pieces fall off the ceiling and creating a dangerous condition. (SAC ¶ 9.)

      The SAC is not fatally uncertain. The alleged facts show that Defendant owed a duty as manager and owner of the property and breached that duty by failing to maintain the ceiling, causing heavy art pieces to fall. Plaintiffs allege they were patrons to establish they were lawfully on the premises. The facts infer that Plaintiffs were injured by falling art. Causation is adequately alleged.

      The case on which Defendant relies states that the facts must give rise to an inference of causation by alleging facts "albeit as succinctly as possible, explaining how the conduct caused or contributed to the injury. (Ibid.; Dunn v. Dufficy, supra, 194 Cal. at p. 386, 228 P. 1029; see also Tucker v. Cooper 1916) 172 Cal. 663, 668, 158 P. 181 [permitting a plaintiff to ‘allege[ ] in sequence a series of facts and circumstances which ... establish the causation between the ... act of the defendant ... and the injury’]; Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, 78–79.)

      Bockrath involved a plaintiff who sued 55 defendants who allegedly manufactured solvents to which Plaintiff was exposed and that caused his myeloma. (Bockrath at 77). The pleading did not allege which defendant made which product and which chemical was implicated (Id.) The court required more detail because of the number of defendants, products, and chemicals implicated.

      This case involves Defendants who controlled a building with art that fell from the ceiling and injured Plaintiffs. 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.)

      Defendant contends in its reply brief that the complaint does not allege facts to determine the answer to the following questions: “Did they trip, together, over fallen art? Did art fall, and fall on Plaintiffs at the exact same time and place? Did different pieces of art injure each Plaintiff separately? Was the art already fallen so as to put Defendant on notice of a weak ceiling condition? Is the condition the art falling, or the ceiling?” (Reply 7:3-6.)

      Defendants do not cite authority that require that level of specificity in pleading a negligence claim. These are questions appropriate for discovery.

                                                                                               V.        CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant is ordered to file an answer within 30 days.