Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV03116, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23TRCV03116 Hearing Date: January 25, 2024 Dept: 8
¿¿
HEARING DATE: January 25, 2024
¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV03116
¿¿
CASE NAME: Jose
Diaz v. Wilmington Avenue Vested Enterprise LLC, et al.
¿¿
MOVING PARTY: Defendant, 16539 South Main Street, LLC (“DOE 1”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Jose Diaz
¿¿
TRIAL DATE: Not Set.
¿¿
MOTION:¿ (1) Demurrer
Tentative Rulings: (1) SUSTAINED with 20 days
leave to amend
I. BACKGROUND¿¿
¿¿
A. Factual¿¿
¿¿
On September 20, 2023, Plaintiff, Jose Diaz (“Plaintiff”)
filed a Complaint against Defendants, Wilmington Avenue Vested Enterprises LLC;
Vanitas Manufacturing, Inc., and DOES 1 through 100. On October 31, 2023,
Plaintiff DOE’d in Defendant, 16539 South Main Street LLC. On December 11,
2023, Plaintiff DOE’d in Defendant, Alliance Guard Services, Inc. The Complaint
alleges causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Assault and Battery; and (3)
Premises Liability.
The Complaint is based on the allegation that on December
16, 2022, Plaintiff attended a Christmas party hosted by Defendant Vanitas
Manufacturing, Inc., and that the party was located at 16539 Main Street,
Gardena, CA. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants were aware that attendees
were consuming alcohol, and notes that Plaintiff began being harassed by three
of Defendants’ employees who were consuming alcohol. Plaintiff asserts that he
promptly informed Defendants’ management of the harassment, but that nothing
was done and security was not alerted. Shortly after, Plaintiff notes that he
left the party on foot, and that two of the previously mentioned employees
followed him and assaulted him, causing sever injuries.
Defendant, 16539 South Main Street, LLC (“16539 South Main”
or “Demurring Defendant”) now files a demurrer to the Complaint.
B. Procedural¿¿
¿
On December 18, 2023, 16539 South Main filed this demurrer. On January 11, 2024,
Plaintiff filed an opposition brief. On January 18, 2024, 16539 South Main filed a reply
brief.
II. GROUNDS FOR DEMURRER
16539 South Main demurs
to the Complaint on the grounds that it argues Plaintiff’s First Cause of
Action for Negligence and Third
Cause of Action for Premises Liability fail to state facts
sufficient to allege this cause of action against it, does not allege a
specific duty owed or breach by Defendant, and is uncertain, ambiguous, and
unintelligible. Although not
specifically raised in the Demurrer, the Complaint also is inconsistent in the year
that various events are alleged to have occurred, some paragraphs of the Complaint
alleging 2022, and others alleging 2023.
Those likely typos can be addressed when Plaintiff amends to address the
substantive shortcomings in the allegations against the Demurring formerly Doe Defendant
16539 South Main. Essentially, the Demurrer
notes that there are different defendants whose alleged misconduct is claimed
in different paragraphs of the Complaint, and that greater specificity is
required as to what it is that this one Demurring Defendant is claimed to have
done wrong as district from the misconduct of other parties. The Court agrees.
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
Uncertain,
Ambiguous, and Unintelligible
Preliminarily, Defendant 16539 South Main argues that both the first and third
causes of action are subjection to special demurrer as they are uncertain,
ambiguous, and unintelligible insofar as what is alleged as against 16539 South
Main. A special demurrer for uncertainty under
Section 430.10(f) is generally disfavored and will only be sustained where the
pleading is so unintelligible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e.,
cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what
counts or claims are directed against him/her. (Khoury, supra 14
Cal.App.4th at 616.) Moreover, even if the pleading is somewhat vague,
“ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Id.) In this case,
Defendant 16539 South Main was originally
identified in the Complaint only as the location of the “subject premises” and
was later substituted in as a specifically identified named party for DOE 1.
However, the only allegations in the Complaint alleging causes of action as
against Defendant 16539 South Main are general ones, making it appear that
every allegation is being made against Defendant 16539 South Main, despite the Demurring
Defendant only brings its special demurrer as to the First and Third causes of
action, and despite the fact that it appears other defendants are the employer
or the hirer of security. Without more
specific allegations as to 16539 South Main’s role, the First and Third causes
of action are uncertain and may or may not be sustainable against it, particularly
because the suit seeks to hold Demurring Defendant responsible for the alleged
intentional criminal acts of others that occurred outside of the subject
premises, claims that are subject to greater specificity than the garden
variety negligence or premises liability causes of action.
As such,
the special demurrer for uncertainty is SUSTAINED with twenty (20) days leave
to amend. Nonetheless, the Court moves through the sufficiency of the facts as
to each of these causes of action below.
Negligence
Next,
Defendant 16539 South Main alleges Plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action
for negligence against it because it fails to state facts sufficient against it
and does not allege what duty was owed by Defendant 16539 South Main. The elements for negligence are: (1) a legal duty owed to
the plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4)
damage to the plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co.¿(2006)
137 Cal.App.4th¿292, 318.)¿¿In California, negligence may be pleaded in¿general
terms. (Landeros v. Flood¿(1976) 17 Cal.3d 399,
407-408.)¿ “Ordinarily, negligence may be alleged in general terms,
without specific facts showing how the injury occurred, but there are ‘limits
to the generality with which a plaintiff is permitted to state his cause of
action, and . . . the plaintiff must indicate the acts or omissions which are
said to have been negligently performed.¿ He may not recover upon the bare
statement that the defendant’s negligence has caused him injury.’ [Citation].”¿
(Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 527.)
Here,
Plaintiff generally states: “That at said time and place, as
aforesaid, Defendants, and their security at the SUBJECT PREMISES, and toward
Plaintiff, inclusive, and each of them, owed a duty of reasonable care toward
Plaintiff, and others based upon Defendants’ ownership of the property, the
SUBJECT CO-WORKERS, Defendants’ right to exercise control over the premises and
their security, their management and employees, maintenance of the property,
their contractual obligations, custom and practice in the industry, and the
commission of affirmative acts that resulted in injury to Plaintiff.”
(Complaint, ¶ 23.) However, the Court notes that because of how generally the
“Defendants” term is used, this is not enough to maintain a cause of action
against this demurring defendant. It appears that Plaintiff is alleging that
demurring defendant owned the subject premises in which housed the employer
defendant that Plaintiff and subject co-workers were employed. However, by
combining “Defendants” as if there were a single entity responsible for every
one of the claimed links in the chain of causation, it is unclear who owed what
claimed duty. Was the demurring defendant or some other party or parties responsible
for security on the premises? How is demurring defendant claimed to have responsibility
to manage employees of the employer defendant? Is Plaintiff alleging Demurring Defendant
had a duty to exercise control over the commission of the affirmative acts that
resulted in injury to Plaintiff? What is the nature of the relationship between
Demurring Defendant and the other parties?
It is unclear. As such, the
demurrer is sustained as to these issues. Plaintiff is allowed twenty (20) days
leave to amend.
Premises Liability
If Demurring Defendant is the owner of the property, as
Plaintiff suggests it is, a heightened foreseeability standard would likely be
required to hold it responsible for the claimed misconduct of the actual
perpetrators. California
law requires landowners to maintain land in their possession and control in a
reasonably safe condition. (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center
(1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674 (Ann M.).) The liability of landowners
for injuries to people on their property is governed by general negligence
principles. (Pineda v. Ennabe (1998) 61
Cal.App.4th 1403, 1407 (Pineda).) A cause of action for negligence
requires (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care, (2) breach of
that duty, (3) causation, and (4) damage to the plaintiff. (County of
Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292,
318.) The existence of a legal duty is a question for the court to
determine, and “foreseeability is a ‘crucial factor’ in determining the
existence and scope of a legal duty.” (Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill
(2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, 237, citing Ann M., supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 674,
676 (Delgado).) However, [A] high degree of foreseeability is required in order to find that the scope of a
landlord’s duty of care includes the hiring of security guards. . . . [T]he
requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the
absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner’s
premises. To hold otherwise would be to impose an unfair burden upon
landlords and, in effect, would force landlords to become the insurers of
public safety, contrary to well established policy in this state.” (Ann
M., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 679, footnote omitted.) “Heightened foreseeability is satisfied
by a showing of prior similar criminal incidents (or other indications
of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults in that location)
and does not require a showing of prior nearly identical criminal
incidents.” (Delgado, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 245.)
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint
has numerous allegations involving the breach of some defendants’ duty for not
alerting security. (Complaint, ¶¶ 16, 23, 25.) As such, even if Plaintiff were
to sufficiently allege the negligence causes of action, Plaintiff is required
to include allegations of heightened foreseeability as to this Demurring Defendant
if Plaintff alleges that it was the owner of the subject premises. Has an
incident like this happened before? Was Demurring Defendant aware that employer
defendant was having a Christmas party? That alcohol was being served? That the employer’s employees were harassing
Plaintiff on the premises? Who was in
charge of security on the premises? It is unclear based on the pleadings.
As such, the demurrer is
sustained as to this cause of action with twenty (20) days leave to amend.
IV. CONCLUSION¿¿
¿¿¿
For the foregoing reasons,
Defendants’ Demurrer is SUSTAINED with twenty (20) days leave to amend.
Unless notice is waived, Demurring Defendant is ordered to
give notice of the Court’s ruling.¿¿¿