Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs Kamil Al-Ahdali and Krubale Mulugeta (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Turo, Inc. (“Turo”), Karem Doe, and Does 1 to 50 for damages arising from a motor vehicle incident occurring on April 28, 2022 near Highland Ave. and Fountain Ave. in Los Angeles, CA 90028. The complaint sets forth two causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. 

Defendant Turo now demurs to each cause of action of Plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and Turo filed a reply. 

 

II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT 

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).)¿¿¿ 

Turo’s counsel declares that he attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel without success. (Thacker Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.) The Court finds Turo has fulfilled this requirement prior to filing the demurrer. 

 

III. 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. (Id. 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].) 

 

IV. DISCUSSION 

Turo argues that Plaintiffs claim they were harmed because Turo gave defendant Karem Doe permission to operate the vehicle. Turo argues that Plaintiffs cannot allege any facts showing how Turo would be liable, because it is a peer-to-peer sharing platform and was not the owner of the vehicle and it did not employ any parties to the action. 

On a demurrer, the Court is limited to the face of the pleadings. Turo contests the truth of the allegations with facts, which does not go towards defects on the face of the pleading. The function of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint, not the truthfulness of the allegations, and the facts as pled are assumed to be true. (Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) The Court will not consider Turo’s extrinsic evidence or arguments that the allegations are speculative at the pleading stage, as it is beyond the scope of a demurrer. (Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1144 [“‘[D]efendants cannot set forth allegations of fact in their demurrers which, if true, would defeat plaintiff's complaint.’”].)  

In terms of Turo’s arguments that the complaint is ambiguous, unintelligible, and therefore subject to a special demurrer for uncertainty, "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."¿(Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) "A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond –i.e., he or she cannot reasonable determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her."¿(Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group) § 7:85 (emphasis in original).) Here, the first cause of action for motor vehicle negligence alleges that on April 29, 2022 at or near Highland Ave./Fountain Ave., in Los Angeles, Karem Doe operated a motor vehicle that was owned and operated with the permission of Turo. (Compl. p. 6.) The complaint further alleges that Turo entrusted the vehicle to Karem Doe, and that Karem Doe was the agent and employee. (Ibid.) The second cause of action for general negligence against all defendants alleges that on April 28, 2022, Karem Doe operated his motor vehicle and exited an alleyway onto Fountain Ave. without caution, such that he violently collided into Plaintiffs’ vehicle. (Id. p. 7.) Plaintiffs allege that each defendant is the owner of the vehicle, and negligently entrusted the vehicle to the driver, and that each defendant was careless and negligent. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs’ use of a form complaint and the allegations contained therein are not so vague that Turo is unaware of the basis for liability claimed against it arising from this motor vehicle incident. Any ambiguities can be clarified during discovery. 

 

V. CONCLUSION 

Turo’s demurrer to the complaint is OVERRULED. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: August 26, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

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 SMCDEPT78@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.