Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV03185, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03185    Hearing Date: January 2, 2024    Dept: K

1.         Defendants Snehal Raj Bhakta’s and Raj Bhakta’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is SUSTAINED. The court will hear from counsel for Plaintiff as to whether leave to amend is requested and will require an offer of proof if so.

2.         Defendants Snehal Raj Bhakta’s and Raj Bhakta’s Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint is DENIED as MOOT.

Background   

Plaintiffs Daniel Galvan and Jayden Galvan (together, “Plaintiffs”) sustained injuries in an October 18, 2021 motor vehicle collision on the I-10 East in Pomona, California.

On October 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Snehal Raj Bhakta (S. Bhakta”), Raj Bhakta (“R. Bhakta”), Jose Alfredo Vargas-Nunez (“Vargas-Nunez”) and Does 1-50 for:

1.                  Negligence

2.                  Negligence Per Se

3.                  Statutory Liability

4.                  Punitive Damages

A Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service are set for March 26, 2024.

1.         Demurrer

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, 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

S. Bhakta and R. Bhakta demur, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f), to the second and fourth causes of action in Plaintiff’s complaint, on the basis that they both fail to state facts sufficient to constitute cause of action and are uncertain.

Second Cause of Action (i.e., Negligence Per Se)

“[T]he doctrine of negligence per se is not a separate cause of action, but creates an evidentiary presumption that affects the standard of care in a cause of action for negligence.” (Johnson v. Honeywell Internat. Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 549, 555 [quotations and citation omitted]; Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1285 [“’Negligence per se’ is an evidentiary doctrine codified at Evidence Code section 669”].)

Plaintiffs have alleged negligence per se as a separate and independent cause of action, rather than as part of their negligence claim. S. Bhakta and R. Bhakta’s demurrer is sustained.

Fourth Cause of Action (i.e., Punitive Damages)

The court notes that “there is no separate cause of action for punitive damages.” (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 429, fn. 3; Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391 [“There is no cause of action for punitive damages. Punitive or exemplary damages are remedies available to a party who can plead and prove the facts and circumstances set forth in Civil Code section 3294, the cases interpreting this code section, or by other statutory authority”]; James v. Public Finance Corp. (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 995, 1000-1001 [“The concurrence of both an actionable wrong and damages are necessary elements for a cause of action. Exemplary damages, where recoverable, are deemed to be ‘. . . mere incidents to the cause of action and. . . (not) the basis thereof” (citation omitted)].)

S. Bhakta and R. Bhakta’s demurrer is sustained.

2.         Motion to Strike

Based upon the ruling made on the demurrer, the motion to strike is denied as moot.