Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01301, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01301    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: G

Defendant Mary L. Scott Trust’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Mary L. Scott Trust’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with twenty (20) days leave to amend. 

BACKGROUND

This is a premises liability action. On October 23, 2021, Plaintiff Alice Walsh was walking down a sidewalk near West 4th Street in Claremont when Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell due to the sidewalk’s uneven, raised, broken, or deteriorating conditions.

On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the City of Claremont, County of Los Angeles, the People of the State of California by and through the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and Mary L. Scott Trust (Defendant), alleging (1) negligence and (2) premises liability.

On November 8, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed the County of Los Angeles from the action. On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed Caltrans from the action.

On February 17, 2023, Defendant filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing, Defendant’s counsel met and conferred telephonically and in writing with Plaintiff’s counsel but was unable to reach a resolution. (Bradley Decl., ¶ 3.)  

A hearing on the demurrer and case management conference is set for March 15, 2023.

ANALYSIS

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s entire Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action because Defendant is a trust and cannot be sued. For the following reasons, the court agrees.

Legal Standard

A party may demur to a complaint on the grounds that it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (Hahn).) When considering demurrers, courts accept all well pleaded facts as true. (Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, at p. 747.)¿ 

Discussion

It is well-established in California law that “a trust cannot sue or be sued or otherwise act in its own name; instead the trustee acts on behalf of the trust.” (Han v. Hallberg (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 621, 632.) This is because “a trust is not a person but rather ‘a fiduciary relationship with respect to property.’” (Moeller v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1124, 1132, fn. 3, quoting Rest.2d Trusts, § 2, p. 6.) Thus, Plaintiff cannot bring an action against Defendant. While Defendant also seeks denial of leave to amend, the court denies Defendant’s request as amendment is not futile since Plaintiff could maintain the present action against Defendant through a trustee.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with twenty (20) days leave to amend.