Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV01598, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22PSCV01598 Hearing Date: March 12, 2024 Dept: K
Defendant The Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles’ (erroneously sued as “Archdiocese of Los
Angeles” and “Queen of Heaven Cemetery”) Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is SUSTAINED,
with 20 days’ leave given to amend.
Background
Plaintiffs Daniel Fraijo, Virginia Fraijo and Kathryn Fraijo (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
Plaintiff’s family member, William C.
Fraijo (“William”), was buried on July 7, 1983 in Section A, Row 13, Grave 1 at
2161 Fullerton Rd., Rowland Heights, CA 91748 (“subject premises”). On November
15, 2020, Plaintiffs visited William’s burial site and noticed that his
headstone was no longer there and was replaced with a headstone belonging to
someone else. Plaintiffs learned that William’s burial site was disinterred and
his remains were relocated to an adjacent burial site without Plaintiffs’
knowledge and/or consent.
On November 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Queen of Heaven Cemetery and Does 1-100 for:
1.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
A Case Management Conference is set for March 12, 2024.
A demurrer may be made on the grounds that the pleading, inter alia, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and/or is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).)
When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 [citations omitted].) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) “[A] demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction placed on an instrument pleaded therein, or facts impossible in law, or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial knowledge.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [citations omitted].)
Discussion
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles’ (erroneously sued as “Archdiocese of Los Angeles” and Queen of Heaven Cemetery”) (“Defendant”) demurs, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f), to Plaintiff’s complaint, on the basis that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain.
Request for Judicial Notice
The court rules on Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) as follows: Granted as to Exhibit 1 (i.e., complaint filed November 1, 2022) and Denied as to Exhibit 2 (i.e., “Declaration of Allison C. Gordin, Esq. Regarding Good Faith Meet and Confer Efforts Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.41 and 435.5.” filed January 2, 2023).
Merits
“The negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent tort but the tort of negligence. The traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply.” (Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, 588.) “[T]here is no duty to avoid negligently causing emotional distress to another.” (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 984.)
“The law of negligent infliction of emotional distress in California is typically analyzed . . . by two ‘theories’ of recovery: the ‘bystander’ theory and the ‘direct victim’ theory.” (Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1071.) The distinction between these cases “is found in the source of the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.” (Id. at 1072). Bystander cases “arise in the context of physical injury or emotional distress caused by the negligent conduct of a defendant with whom the plaintiff had no preexisting relationship, and to whom the defendant had not previously assumed a duty of care beyond that owed to the public in general. In other words, bystander liability is premised upon a defendant's violation of a duty not to negligently cause emotional distress to people who observe conduct which causes harm to another.” (Id. [quotations and citation omitted].)
Direct victim cases arise where “damages for serious emotional distress are sought as a result of a breach of duty owed the plaintiff that is assumed by the defendant or imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or that arises out of a relationship between the two.” (Id. at 1073 [quotations and citation omitted].) “[U]unless the defendant has assumed a duty to plaintiff in which the emotional condition of the plaintiff is an object, recovery is available only if the emotional distress arises out of the defendant's breach of some other legal duty and the emotional distress is proximately caused by that breach of duty.” (Potter, supra, 6 Cal.4th at 985.)
Plaintiffs have alleged only that Defendant owed them “a general duty of care to avoid taking actions that would injure [them].” (Complaint, ¶ 13 [emphasis added].) Again, however, there is no general duty to avoid causing emotional distress to another party. Plaintiffs have failed to allege whether they were bystanders to Defendant’s alleged actions that caused emotional harm to another, nor have they alleged that they were a direct victim of Defendant’s breach of duty owed to them to not take action that would cause them emotional harm.
Defendant’s demurrer is sustained.