Owoimaha Umoh v. Cameron Neale, et al. 

DEFENDANT EAN HOLDINGS, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Owoimaha Umoh brings this action for negligence against Defendants Cameron Neale and EAN Holdings, LLC. Plaintiff alleges Defendants negligently “entrusted, managed, maintained, drove, and operated” a motor vehicle that collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. 

Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC now moves for judgment on the pleadings.  No opposition was filed. 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.  Whether leave to amend is granted or not shall depend on the offer of proof made by Plaintiff at the hearing as to how Plaintiff can successfully amend his Complaint as to the demurring party, consistent with this ruling. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

I. Meet and Confer

II. Request for Judicial Notice

Pursuant to Defendant’s request, the court takes judicial notice of Exhibits A, B, C.  

III. Legal Standard

The rules applicable to demurrers also apply to motions for judgment on the pleadings.    (County of Orange v. Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 21, 32.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).) The grounds for the motion must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from matters that may be judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (d).) The trial court must accept as true all material facts properly pleaded, but does not consider conclusions of law or fact, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or facts that are judicially noticed.  (Stevenson Real Estate Services, Inc. v. CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1219-20.) “A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself.” (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.)

IV. Analysis

Defendant EAN Holdings, LLC, moves for judgment on the pleadings. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and lack factual support. Defendant also argues that the “Graves Amendment” (49 U.S.C. § 30106) precludes this action because Plaintiff has not alleged “an independent act of negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of EAN.” (Mtn. 1: 20-21.)

Under California’s “fact-pleading” rule, allegations need only provide fair notice of the claim and must be liberally construed. (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 869, 886.) The plaintiff satisfies this burden by alleging ultimate, as opposed to evidentiary facts that “ ‘as a whole apprise[ ] the adversary of the factual basis of the claim. [Citations.]’ ” (Id.) The essential elements to be pleaded “are determined by the substantive law that defines the cause of action.” (Foster v. Sexton (2021) 61 Cal. App. 5th 998, 1018.) To state a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must allege (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, (2) the defendant breached that duty, and (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's damages or injuries. (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal. App. 4th 49.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Cameron Neale and EAN Holdings, LLC, (“EAN”) were the “owners and operators of a vehicle” which they “negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, drove, and operated…so as to cause defendants’ vehicle to collide with the plaintiff's vehicle.” (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 9.) As a result of the collision, Plaintiff “has received severe injuries to Plaintiff's body and shock and injuries to Plaintiff's nervous system, all of which caused him severe pain and discomfort,” and anticipates further “pain and discomfort” in the future. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants “were acting as the agents, servants, and/or employees of the other named defendants, and were within the course and scope of their employment and with the full knowledge and consent of each of the other named defendants.” (Id. ¶ 5.) 

While it is not clear from the Complaint, this court gathers from Defendant’s request for judicial notice that Defendant is an entity or affiliate of Enterprise Rent-A-Car and is in the business of providing rental vehicles. (See RJN, Exhs. A, B, C.) The court therefore presumes that Defendant Neale rented the vehicle involved in the accident from Defendant EAN. 

As is evident, the allegations in the Complaint are conclusory and lack any specific facts. It is not clear from the Complaint under what theories Plaintiff is seeking to hold Defendant EAN, or what duty it may have had -- as a lessor of rental cars—to Plaintiff.  Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against the moving Defendant.

Be that as it may, any attempt by the Plaintiff to sue EAN under the Graves Amendment will not be allowed in this case.

EAN effectively argues that the allegations are insufficient to show that it is legally responsible for the damages and injuries alleged by Plaintiff due to negligence. EAN correctly contends that, under 49 U.S.C. § 30106 (“Graves Amendment”), as a rental car company, it cannot be held responsible under state law for the negligent acts of its customers unless it is liable for its own independent act of negligence.   EAN also contends that the Graves Amendment specifically preempts ownership liability pursuant to California Vehicle Code sections 17150-17159. It also argues that it only may be liable for independent acts of negligence.  This Court agrees.  (See also, Osborn v. Hertz Corp. (1998) 205 Cal.App.3d 703, 709; [that negligent entrustment in the rental context means that either (1) the vehicle was rented to an individual with a facially invalid driver’s license or (2) the vehicle was rented to an individual who was impaired at the time of renting.]) 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. 

Generally speaking, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) 

Plaintiff must demonstrate at the hearing that he is able to successfully amend his Complaint, which is consistent with this ruling.  If he doesn’t, no leave to amend will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   March 14, 2025 ___________________________________