Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 22STCV27975, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 22STCV27975    Hearing Date: February 23, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

          Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”) demurs to the 1^st (negligence) and 2^nd (strict products liability) and 3^rd (wrongful death) causes of action in the complaint of Plaintiffs Jyla Elsa Corral, Rafael Corral, Jonaven Hess Corral, Rafael Corral, Jayben Cali Corral, and Jocelyn Corral (collectively “Plaintiffs”). Defendant argues that each cause of action is uncertain and fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action.  

          Judicial Notice

Defendant requests the court to take judicial notice of (1) California Highway Patrol’s Traffic Crash Report of the incident; (2) Records obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s VIN Decoder website regarding the subject vehicle; and (3) Plaintiff’s filing of a Doe Amendment.

The court takes judicial notice of RJN No. 3 pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d). The court declines to take judicial notice of RJN Nos. 1 and 2, as Defendant does not provide a proper basis for them to be taken judicial notice of and they contain facts reasonably in dispute.  

Background Allegations

          Plaintiffs are the minor children and successors in interest to Decedent. (Complaint ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiffs allege decedent died when she was in an accident. Plaintiffs allege that decedent was a passenger in a 1999 Ford E350 passenger van and the front door failed and decedent fell out of the vehicle on to the freeway. (Complaint ¶ 12-13.)

Legal Standard

“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  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.  (See Donabedian v. Mercury Insurance Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law.  (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital District (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) 

          Uncertain

Demurrers for uncertainty are strictly construed, because discovery can be used for clarification, and apply where defendants cannot reasonably determine what issues or claims are stated.  (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶¶7:85-7:86.)   

Defendants demur to all of the causes of action based on uncertainty as it argues that it is ambiguous as to what door was defective, as the complaint only states that the “front door” and the “front door system” of the subject vehicle was defective. Defendants state it is unclear if the “door” being referred to is the front door of the cab or the front door of the body. Defendants argue that this is essential as Defendant only manufactured or sold the front door of the cab. (Demurrer, pg. 2-3.) 

“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 reasonably 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).)¿ “The objection of uncertainty does not go to the failure to allege sufficient facts.”¿ (Brea v.¿McGlashan¿(1934) 3 Cal.App.2d 454, 459.)¿ “It goes to the doubt as to what the pleader means by the facts alleged.” (Id.)¿ “Such a demurrer should not be sustained where the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues which he is to meet.”¿ (People v. Lim¿(1941) 18 Cal.2d 872, 882.)

As alleged, the causes of action are not uncertain and specifically apprise Defendant of the claims alleged against it. At this stage, it is not essential that Plaintiffs allege the specific door of the vehicle that failed. This ambiguity can be cleared up through discovery rather than demurrer.

Defendant’s Demurrer based on uncertainty is overruled.¿¿ 

          Failure to State Sufficient Facts

          Alternatively, Defendant argues that the complaint is also subject to demurrer because Defendant did not manufacture, design, or distribute the body of the vehicle and it sold the vehicle as an “incomplete vehicle.” However, these facts are outside the scope of the pleading and not judicially noticeable. This argument is more appropriate for a summary judgment motion after discovery has taken place.

          Defendant’s demurrer as to the complaint is overruled.

Dated:  February ___ 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court