Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 23STCV18649, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18649    Hearing Date: March 7, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

RENA WEST, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

MELROSE PLAZA, LLC, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 23STCV18649 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER OVERRULING DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT  

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

March 7, 2024 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff Rena West (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Melrose Plaza, LLC, Vista Del Rosa Apartments, and Ali Habibi (“Defendants”) for injuries arising from a trip and fall due to inadequate lighting conditions on Defendants’ property. The complaint sets forth two causes of action for premises liability and negligence. 

Defendants now demur to the complaint, arguing that the causes of action fail to state sufficient facts to constitute a claim against them. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer, and Defendants filed a reply.   

 

  1. Moving Argument 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not pled with specificity any facts related to the nature of the dangerous and/or defective condition. Defendants argue the causes of action are improper, vague, ambiguous, and conclusory. 

 

  1. Opposing Argument 

Plaintiff contends the complaint has sufficiently alleged each and every ultimate or essential fact to establish each cause of action against Defendants, enough for Defendants to be put on notice for what Defendants are being sued for.  

 

  1. Reply Argument 

Defendants reiterate that the complaint alleges conclusions of law and conclusory statements.  

  

II. Demurrer 

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.) The “face of the complaint” includes material contained in attached exhibits that are incorporated by reference into the complaint; or in a superseded complaint in the same action.  (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94; see also Barnett v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 500, 505 [“[W]e rely on and accept as true the contents of the exhibits and treat as surplusage the pleader’s allegations as to the legal effect of the exhibits.”]). 

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.) 

 

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).)   

The Court finds Defendants fulfilled this requirement prior to filing the demurrer.   

 

B. Discussion  

The elements of premises liability and negligence cause of action are the same: duty, breach, causation and damages.  (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)  “The owner of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm.  A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.”  (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619; Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.)    

“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.)  However, while negligence may be alleged in general terms, there are “limits to the generality with which a plaintiff is permitted to state his cause of action.”  (Ibid.)   

Here, the complaint alleges in relevant part: 

 

“3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon allege, that at all relevant times Defendants MELROSE PLAZA; VISTA DEL ROSA; HABIBI and DOES 1 to 99, inclusive owned and operated a “Vista Del Rosa Apartments” apartment building located at 1444 N. Vista St., Los Angeles, CA 90046 within the County of Los Angeles. 

 

… 

 

7. At all times mentioned in this Complaint, Defendants and each of them owned, maintained, controlled, managed and operated the business premises identified as “Vista Del Rosa Apartments” as an apartment building located at 1444 N. Vista St., Los Angeles, CA 90046 open to the public, hereinafter referred to as the “subject premises”. 

 

8. On or about August 12, 2021 Plaintiff was lawfully an invitee on the Defendants’ premises identified as located at 1444 N. Vista St., Los Angeles, CA 90046. At said date and place Plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injuries as a direct result of the misconduct of Defendants, and each of them. 

 

9. As Plaintiff was walking on the subject premises, Plaintiff suddenly tripped and fell as a result of dangerous and defective conditions on the premises. Said dangerous conditions include, but are not limited to, improperly maintained common areas including stairs, stairwells, stair coverings, and walkways in such a manner as to constitute a dangerous and unreasonable slip/trip and fall hazard. […]. 

 

… 

 

12. Furthermore, inadequate and/or non-functioning lighting in the area of the subject premises where the incident occurred directly caused and contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. […].”  

 

(Complaint at ¶¶ 3, 7-8, and 12.)   

Here, Defendants are sufficiently apprised that the basis of liability against them is a trip and fall over stairs in the common area of an apartment building due to inadequate or non-functioning lighting. Defendants contend that there are no facts showing Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff. However, it is sufficient for Plaintiff to plead that Defendants owned, managed, and controlled the premises to infer a duty. Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property in order to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm.  (Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.)  Consequently, the “duty to exercise reasonable care can be inferred from the assertion of the fact that defendant owned and managed the property.”  (See Pultz v. Holgerson (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1117 [allegation of defendant's negligent management and maintenance of property].) 

Further, the Court disagrees that the complaint lacks sufficient particularity, such that it is uncertain. A party may object to a pleading by demurrer if “The pleading is uncertain.” Uncertain includes ambiguous and unintelligible. (CCP §430.10(f).) However, uncertainty is a disfavored basis for demurrer and only applies when the demurrer is sufficiently unintelligible that a responding party would have no idea how to direct their litigation efforts.  (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Ludgate Insurance Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.)  “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.”  (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.)    

Here, as provided above, the complaint sufficiently alleges a claim for negligence and premises liability against Defendants. Any ambiguity concerning specific facts can be clarified through discovery.    

 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered to file an Answer to the complaint within 10 days. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 6th day of March 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court