Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 22STCV18435 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22STCV18435, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18435 Hearing Date: December 9, 2022 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: December 9, 2022¿¿

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 22STCV18435

¿¿

CASE NAME: Romualdo Quintal III, a minor, by his Guardian Ad Litem, Socorro Cisneros v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al .¿¿¿

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Chi Hsin Impex, Inc.

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Romualdo Quintal III

¿¿

TRIAL DATE: None set¿

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Demurrer¿ ¿

Tentative Rulings: (1) Defendant’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the product liability allegations with leave to amend.

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff, Romualdo Quintal III, a minor, by his Guardian Ad Litem, Socorro Cisneros (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation and Chi Hsin Impex, Inc. for: (1) General Negligence; (2) Products Liability; and (3) Premises Liability. This action is based on the following set of facts: On or about August 20, 2021, Plaintiff was lawfully on Defendants’ premises when a kettlebell fell on Plaintiff’s hand, smashing and disfiguring his right little finger. Plaintiff alleges that the subject kettlebell was being displayed for sale at defendant’s above-mentioned retail premises when it fell.

Defendant now demurs to the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

B. Procedural¿¿

On November 4, 2022, Defendant filed its Demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint. On November 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s Demurrer. On December 1, 2022, Defendant filed a reply brief to Plaintiff’s oppositions to Demurrer.

¿II. MOVING PARTY’S GROUNDS

Defendant now demurs to the Complaint generally because Defendant argues that the entire Complaint is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible in that Defendant cannot ascertain how Plaintiff’s injury occurred. Defendant also demurs specifically to Plaintiff’s complaint because Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for products liability.

III. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Standard

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)¿¿¿

¿¿

A pleading is uncertain if it is ambiguous or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) A demurrer for uncertainty may lie if the failure to label the parties and claims renders the complaint so confusing defendant cannot tell what he or she is supposed to respond to.¿ (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.) However, “[a] demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)¿¿

B. Discussion

1. Uncertain, Ambiguous, and Unintelligible

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s entire complaint is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Demurrers for uncertainty are strictly construed and will only be sustained where the respondent cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Defendant asserts that the Complaint is uncertain because no defect has been properly alleged under any of the pled products liability theories, and fundamental problems of causation has rendered the claims inviable.

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that plaintiff was in the lawfully on the premises of Big 5 Sporting Goods store in Selma, Fresno County, California and that a Kettlebell was on display for sale. The Complaint further alleges that the Kettlebell subsequently fell on Plaintiff’s hand, smashing and disfiguring his right little finger. Here, Plaintiff alleges that the store failed to warn of the hazards posed by the Kettleball, but it does not appear to be alleging that Marcy or the Kettleball itself failed to warn. As such, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts because no defect has been alleged under any of the product liability theories.

2. Products Liability

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff failed to allege facts demonstrating a Products Liability claim regarding the subject kettlebell. Several types of products liability cases exist, including three major theories: strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. Strict product liability focuses on the product itself, not the conduct of the manufacturer. (Carlin v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1104, 1110.) A prima facie case of strict products liability requires plaintiff to demonstrate that (a) the product was legally “defective;” (b) the product was causally connected to the defect; and (c) plaintiff suffered injury as a proximate result of the defect. (Id.) A plaintiff’s first task in a strict liability action is to establish that the injury-producing object or instrumentality was legally defective. For this purpose, a product may be “defective” because of a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or a warning defect. (See id.; see also Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1057.)

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint neglects any factual allegations, as distinct from the conclusions, that the kettlebell was defective. Merely alleging that the kettlebell fell on plaintiff’s hand is insufficient in the Court’s view. Plaintiff’s Opposition includes several additional contentions that, if true, could be included in an amended complaint to make the pleading less uncertain, more clear, and to enable the demurring defendant to better understand the basis of claimed liability against it as distinct from the claims being asserted against Big 5. Those additional contentions include the implicit packaging or container defect that a paper tag attached to the kettle bell ripped, that plaintiff picked up the kettle bell and lost his grip on it after picking it up, and that he tried to catch the falling bell but it landed on his hand or finger when attempting to catch it. A weighted object is not defective because it causes injury when a plaintiff drops it, but a weighted object that is packaged or in a container that fails during the reasonably foreseeable act of taking it off the display to inspect it may well be defective. Accordingly, if plaintiff can truthfully allege the contentions identified in his Opposition brief, leave to amend may well cure the pleading deficiency.

IV. CONCLUSION¿¿

¿¿¿

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

¿¿¿

Moving party is ordered to give notice unless notice is waived.¿¿¿¿

¿¿¿

¿¿