Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 22TRCV01509 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01509, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01509 Hearing Date: April 7, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: April 7, 2022¿¿

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV01509

¿¿

CASE NAME: Anthony Miller v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, City of Los Angeles

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Anthony Miller

¿¿

TRIAL DATE: Not Set

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Demurrer¿

Tentative Rulings: (1) City’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff, Anthony Miller (“Plaintiff”), filed a Judicial Council form complaint for bodily injury arising out of a motor vehicle collision. On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence against Defendant, City of Los Angeles (“City”).

The FAC is based on the following alleged facts: On July 21, 2022, defendants owned, operated, entrusted and controlled an unspecified vehicle that was negligently or recklessly done so as to cause Plaintiff to sustain every category of damages in form complaint paragraph 11 subparagraphs (a) to (g) in an unspecified amount. Plaintiff’s opposition brief to this demurrer, but not any of the attachments to the form complaint, asserts that plaintiff was a pedestrian on the Fly Away Shuttle, owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles, leaving LAX on his way to the Uber/Lyft pick up area when the driver of the shuttle, without braking, drove into a large pole at approximately 20 miles per hour.

B. Procedural¿¿

On March 3, 2023, Defendant, City of Los Angeles filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s FAC. On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On March 23, 2023, Defendant filed a reply brief.

¿II. MOVING PARTY’S GROUNDS FOR THE DEMURRER¿¿

City demurs to the First and Second causes of action because City argues that the Motor Vehicle Negligence and General Negligence fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against City.

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

Negligence

¿¿

Plaintiff’s FAC checks a variety of the form complaint’s boxes and incorporates several pages of vaguely and generally stated allegations. Without reading the Opposition brief, neither the defendant nor the Court would know whether Plaintiff was the driver or another vehicle, a passenger in the defendant’s vehicle, or was a pedestrian.

In its demurrer, City asserted that The City of Los Angeles, a public entity, is not liable for injuries sustained on its property or caused by its employees, except as provided for by statute. City argues that Plaintiff’s FAC does not contain any allegations, stated with even minimal specificity sufficient to withstand Defendant’s demurrer. City further argues that Plaintiff’s FAC does not contain allegations sufficient to allege a statutory violation by City or its employees with the required particularity, and that the pleading fails to allege what dangerous condition, if any, existed on Defendant’s property that caused the incident, nor the negligent act of one of City’s employees that caused the incident. City also contends that all of the allegations in the FAC, alleging that all of the Defendants were engaged in, or their employees engaged in unspecified conduct, means the FAC is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to Defendant.

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s FAC should have been pleaded with greater specificity. The City’s demurrer asserts that the FAC is void of specific allegations of the acts or omissions of an employee of Defendant, known or unknown, that caused injury to Plaintiff. The Demurrer also notes that the Complaint fails to address required elements of negligence, and that the defense is unable to find any allegations referencing duty or breach in Plaintiff’s FAC. As such, this Court sustains City’s demurrer with leave to amend. Had plaintiff included the substance of the factually contentions from its Opposition brief in the complaint, the City likely would not have demurred. Part of the reason greater specificity is required is that as a public agency, the City sometimes enters into contract with third party vendors who are not named in lawsuits. Since a public agency’s waiver of sovereign immunity may be limited in scope, it becomes more important for a public agency to have specificity when a claim is filed or a lawsuit is raised against it so that the agency can properly respond to the claim or suit. For example, the City may have indemnification agreements or other relationships that may need to be raised in an answer or by way of a compulsory or permissive counterclaim.

IV. CONCLUSION¿¿

¿¿¿

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

¿¿¿

Demurring party is ordered to give notice unless waived by both sides.¿¿¿¿

¿¿¿