Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 23PSCV01200, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV01200, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01200 Hearing Date: October 25, 2023 Dept: K

Cross-Defendant The Estate of Mathew Romo’s Demurrer to Cross-Complaint of Cross-Complainants Christopher David Lester and National Tractor Service, Inc. is SUSTAINED. The court will hear from counsel for Cross-Complainants as to whether leave to amend is requested, and as to which cause(s) of action, and will require an offer of proof if so.

Background

Plaintiffs Kathy Marie Romo and Chris Romo, individually and as successors-in-interest for Mathew Romo (“Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:

Mathew Romo died from injuries he sustained ina February 21, 2022 motor vehicle collision.

On April 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Christopher David Lester (“Lester”), Alarcon Sons, Inc. (“ASI”) and Does 1-100 for:

1. Negligence

On June 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed two “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein National Tractor Service, Inc. (“NTSI”) was named in lieu of Doe 1 and Michael Alfred Alarcon (“Alarcon”) was named in lieu of Doe 2.

On July 20, 2023, Lester and NTSI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against The Estate of Mathew Romo (“Estate”) and Roes 1-25 for:

1. Indemnification

2. Apportionment of Fault

3. Declaratory Relief

On August 17, 2023, ASI and Alarcon filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Estate and Roes 26-50 for:

1. Indemnification

2. Apportionment of Fault

3. Declaratory Relief

A Case Management Conference is set for January 12, 2024.

Legal Standard

A demurrer may be made on the grounds that there is a defect or misjoinder of parties and/or that the pleading not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (d)&(e).)

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

Estate demurs, per Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subdivisions (d)&(e), to the first through third causes of action in Lester and NTSI’s cross-complaint, on the basis that there is a defect or misjoinder of the parties to the cross-complaint and that the causes of action therein fail to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action.

Meet and Confer

Cross-Complainants’ assertion that counsel for Estate failed to comply with meet and confer requirements before filing the instant demurrer (Opp., 3:19-28) is belied by the Declaration of Natalie Avedisian, specifically the representations found in ¶¶ 3-6 of her declaration. The court, then, will proceed to address the merits of the demurrer.

Merits

Estate first demurs on the basis of misjoinder. “An ‘estate’ is not a legal entity and is neither a natural nor artificial person. It is merely a name to indicate the sum total of the assets and liabilities of a decedent, or of an incompetent, or of a bankrupt. . . An ‘estate’ can neither sue nor be sued.” (Bright’s Estate v. Western Air Lines (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 827, 828-829; see also Galdjie v. Darwish (2003) 113 Cal.App.4^th 1331, 1344 [“A probate or trust estate is not a legal entity; it is simply a collection of assets and liabilities. As such, it has no capacity to sue or be sued, or to defend an action. Any litigation must be maintained by, or against, the executor or administrator of the estate.”].)

Estate next demurs on the basis that the indemnification, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief causes of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action. The court agrees.

“Equitable indemnity is an equitable doctrine that apportions responsibility among tortfeasors responsible for the same indivisible injury on a comparative fault basis. . . A right of equitable indemnity can arise only if the prospective indemnitor and indemnitee are mutually liable to another person for the same injury.” (Fremont Reorganizing Corp. v. Faigin (2011) 198 Cal.App.4^th 1153, 1176-1177 [emphasis added].) “The right of contribution, although necessarily related to some former transaction or obligation, exists as an entirely separate contract implied by law. In situations where two or more parties are jointly liable on an obligation and one of them makes payment of more than his share, the one paying possesses a new obligation against the others for their proportion of what he has paid for them.” (Borba Farms, Inc. v. Acheson (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 597, 602 [emphasis added].) And, “[t]he object of [the declaratory relief statute] is to afford a new form of relief where needed and not to furnish a litigant with a second cause of action for the determination of identical issues.” (California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1617, 1624.)

Estate’s demurrer is sustained on the foregoing grounds.