Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV02450, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV02450    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: K

Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC’s Demurrer to Complaint is OVERRULED.

Background[1]  

Plaintiff Brandon Ray McComb Evans (“Plaintiff”) sustained injuries in an August 13, 2021 motor vehicle collision.

On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against EAN Holdings LLC (“EAN”), Francisco J Rivera Alvarado (“Alvarado”) and Does 1-20 for:

1.                  Negligence

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service are set for January 30, 2024.

Legal Standard

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, subd. (e) and(f).) A demurrer may also be made on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (a).)

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

EAN demurs, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, to Plaintiff’s complaint, on the basis that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over EAN based on preemption and that the sole cause of action therein fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain.

Request for Judicial Notice

The court denies EAN’s Request for Judicial Notice as unnecessary. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4^th 26, 45, fn. 9 [“A request for judicial notice of published material is unnecessary. Citation to the material is sufficient.”].)

Merits

“The elements of a negligence cause of action are the existence of a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Castellon v. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4^th 994, 998).

Plaintiff has alleged, inter alia, that on August 13, 2021 he was driving a 2017 Jeep Cherokee on SR-60 West (Complaint, ¶¶ 7-8); that Alvarado was driving an MV Box Truck at the aforementioned time and place (Id., ¶ 9); that EAN “owned, maintained, repaired, controlled, entrusted, managed, supervised, drove, and/or operated motor vehicles that were involved in the subject accident with Plaintiff” (Id., ¶ 10 [emphasis added]); that “Defendants negligently entrusted, maintained, controlled, managed, drove, manufactured, operated, repaired, distributed, inspected, and repaired said automobiles so as to cause them to collide or be involved in some way with the vehicle Plaintiff was driving, thereby causing the hereinafter described injuries and damages to Plaintiff herein” (Id., ¶ 11 [emphasis added).

EAN argues that “vicarious liability based on permissive use has been preempted by application of 49 U.S.C. § 30106(a)[2] and eliminated as a basis for liability on the part of a rental car owner.” (Demurrer, 4:22-25). Plaintiff has not alleged anywhere in the complaint, however, that EAN rented or leased any of the vehicles involved in the incident or that it is “engaged in the trade or business or renting or leasing motor vehicles,” nor is this purported fact judicially noticeable. Further, EAN’s focus on vicarious liability overlooks Plaintiff’s allegations of direct negligence.

EAN’s uncertainty argument (i.e., that it “is uncertain in how it states a cause of action against defendant(s) on a basis other than ownership of an accident participant vehicle” [Demurrer, 2:11-13]) is contradicted by the allegations in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Plaintiff’s complaint.

EAN’s demurrer is overruled.