SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Jeffrey L. O’Malley (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Special Service For Groups, Inc., et al. for damages arising from hot water being thrown on Plaintiff by another resident at a housing for the homeless. The form complaint indicates causes of action for (1) general negligence and (2) intentional tort.   

Defendant Special Service For Groups, Inc. (“SGS”) now demurs to each cause of action, arguing both fail to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against it. SGS’ related motion to strike punitive damages is moot, pursuant to the stipulation between the parties. (Stip. & Order, March 11, 2024.) 

Any opposition was due on or before March 4, 2024; the motion is unopposed.  

  

II. DEMURRER 

A. Meet and Confer 

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.  (CCP § 430.41(a).)   

SGS’s counsel left two telephone messages for Plaintiff’s counsel to discuss the issue on January 29, 2024. (Dem. Decl. Levine, ¶¶ 2-3.) SGS making two attempts on a single day to contact Plaintiff’s counsel is insufficient to fulfill this requirement prior to filing the demurrer. However, an insufficient meet and confer process is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(4).) Despite the failure to properly meet and confer, the Court will address the motion on the merits.  

 

B. Legal Standard 

A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings.  It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party's pleading (complaint, answer or cross-complaint).  (CCP §§ 422.10, 589; see Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)  It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purposes of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true.  (Donabedian, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) 

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.)  No other extrinsic evidence can be considered.  (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881 [error for court to consider facts asserted in memorandum supporting demurrer]; see also Afuso v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 859, 862 [disapproved on other grounds in Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287] [error to consider contents of release not part of court record].) 

A demurrer can only be sustained when it disposes of an entire cause of action.  (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97,119; Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redev. Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1046.) 

 

1. First Cause of Action – General Negligence  

The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages.  (Orey v. Superior Court (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1255; Johnson v. Prasad (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 74, 78.)  “Ordinarily, negligence may be alleged in general terms, without specific facts showing how the injury occurred, but there are ‘limits to the generality with which a plaintiff is permitted to state his cause of action, and ... the plaintiff must indicate the acts or omissions which are said to have been negligently performed. He may not recover upon the bare statement that the defendant’s negligence has caused him injury.’ [Citation].” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 527.)    

SGS contends the complaint fails to plead SGS’ involvement in the day-to-day operations of the residence and whether SGS should have known that another resident had threatened Plaintiff. The form complaint alleges, in relevant part, that SGS retained Homeless Outreach Program Integrated Care System to assist in finding housing for homeless individuals. (Compl. at ¶ 3.) On September 28, 2020, Plaintiff rented a room in the house by signing a lease with Housing 1BY1 as the landlord. (Id. at ¶ 4.) On May 12, 2021, another resident, believed to be Cassandra Brown (“Brown”), threw scalding hot water on Plaintiff’s body as he slept in a bed. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Prior to the incident, Brown had engaged in arguments with Plaintiff and others in the home. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants were negligent by not providing Plaintiff a safe environment and were responsible for injury caused by Brown. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.)  

Here, the Court agrees that the factual allegations have not sufficiently pled that SGS had a duty to Plaintiff, or properly pled a basis for liability against SGS for injuries arising from a third-party tortfeasor. SGS’ only involvement, according to the complaint, is that SGS is involved in implementing plans for the homeless to obtain housing. There are no allegations of any acts or omissions performed by SGS to state a cause of action for negligence.