Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV16129, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV16129    Hearing Date: April 23, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Rusnak/Pasadena Audi    

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Nieva I. Pijuan

Demurrer to Complaint

The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with this demurrer.[1]  No reply papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Rusnak/Pasadena Audi (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order sustaining its demurrer to the fifth cause of action for negligent repair, alleged in the Complaint filed in this action by plaintiff Nieva I. Pijuan (“Plaintiff”).

The court overrules Defendant’s demurrer to the fifth cause of action for negligent repair because it states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since (1) Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged all the elements of this cause of action by alleging that (i) Defendant owed to Plaintiff a duty to use ordinary care and skill in the storage, preparation, and repair of the subject vehicle (Compl., ¶ 57), (ii) Defendant breached that duty “by failing to properly store, prepare and repair the Subject Vehicle in accordance with industry standards” (Compl., ¶ 58), and (iii) Defendant’s “breach of its duties owed to Plaintiff was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages” (Compl., ¶ 59), and (2) Defendant has not shown that, on the face of the Complaint, this cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule because it is based on the duty owed by Defendant to properly store, prepare, and repair the subject vehicle in accordance with industry standards (Compl., ¶¶ 57-58), which is independent of and does not arise from any contractual relationship between the parties.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Romero v. Los Angeles Rams (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 562, 567 [“The elements of a negligence cause of action are (1) the existence of a duty, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) injury to the plaintiff caused by the defendant’s breach, and (4) actual damages”]; Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, 27; Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 905, 923 [“Not all tort claims for monetary losses between contractual parties are barred by the economic loss rule.  But such claims are barred when they arise from—or are not independent of—the parties’ underlying contracts”].)

ORDER

            The court overrules defendant Rusnak/Pasadena Audi’s demurrer to plaintiff Nieva I. Pijuan’s fifth cause of action for negligent repair.

            The court orders defendant Rusnak/Pasadena Audi to file an answer to plaintiff Nieva I. Pijuan’s Complaint within 10 days of the date of service of this order.

            The court orders plaintiff Nieva I. Pijuan to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 23, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court