Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV03008, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV03008    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Al Bayaan Islamic Center, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Elias Delgado Serano’s Unverified Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Elias Delgado Serano

Defendant Al Bayaan Islamic Center, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff Elias Delgado Serano’s Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Elias Delgado Serano

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Al Bayaan Islamic Center, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Elias Delgado Serano’s Unverified Complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendant Al Bayaan Islamic Center, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff Elias Delgado Serano’s Complaint is DENIED.

Defendant Al Bayaan Islamic Center, Inc. to file its Answer in ten (10) days.

BACKGROUND

This is a premises liability action. In January 2021, Plaintiff Elias Delgado Serano was climbing a ladder at a property in La Puente when Delgado Serano slipped and fell. Delgado Serano alleges the property was owned, maintained, managed, and operated by Defendants Mian Construction and Al Bayaan Islamic Center, Inc. (Al Bayaan).

On December 20, 2022, Delgado Serano filed a complaint against Mian Construction, Al Bayaan, and Does 1-10, alleging (1) premises liability and (2) general negligence.

On January 16, 2024, Al Bayaan filed the present demurrer and motion to strike. On March 4, the court continued the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike in order for parties to further meet and confer.

A hearing on the present motion is set for April 8, 2024, along with a case management conference.

DEMURRER

Al Bayaan demurs to Delgado Serano’s entire Complaint on the grounds that it fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. For the following reasons, the court OVERRULES Al Bayaan’s demurrer.

Legal Standard

Demurrer

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.)

Premises Liability and Negligence

“[P]remises liability and negligence rest on the same elements—namely, (1) a legal duty of care, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Martinez v. City of Beverly Hills (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 508, 517.)

Discussion

In this case, Al Bayaan argues the Complaint fails to allege what Delgado Serano was hired to do, what Delgado Serano was doing, who hired Delgado Serano, and where Delgado Serano was when Delgado Serano allegedly slipped and fell. But such specificity is not required as “negligence may be pleaded in general terms.” (Lopez v Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795.) Here, the Complaint alleges Delgado Serano was lawfully at a property in La Puente that was owned, operated, maintained, and managed by Al Bayaan and Mian Construction when Delgado Serano slipped and fell from a ladder. (Complaint, p. 4-5.) The court finds these allegations are sufficient to establish where and how Delgado Serano was injured.

Next, Al Bayaan argues the Complaint fails to allege how they breached their duty of care. The Complaint alleges Al Bayaan provided a ladder to Delgado Serano that “became unstable” and that the ladder became a dangerous condition through Al Bayaan’s carelessness, recklessness, and negligence. (Complaint, p. 4-5.) The Complaint also alleges Al Bayaan failed to prevent the dangerous condition, failed to remedy the dangerous condition, and failed to give adequate warning of the dangerous condition. (Complaint, p. 5.) The court finds these allegations are sufficient to establish Al Bayaan’s alleged breach in the form of providing a ladder that became unstable to Delgado Serano. While Al Bayaan argues the Complaint fails to allege how Al Bayaan owned or controlled the ladder at issue, the allegation that Al Bayaan provided the ladder is sufficient to establish they exercised control over it.

Last, Al Bayaan argues the Complaint fails to establish how Delgado Serano’s fall was caused by the allegedly dangerous condition. But the Complaint does so by alleging Delgado Serano “slipped and fell from a ladder” that had become unstable. (Complaint, p. 4-5.)

Accordingly, Al Bayaan’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Al Bayaan moves to strike Doe allegations and dangerous condition allegations from Delgado Serano’s Complaint. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Al Bayaan’s motion.

Legal Standard

Upon a party’s motion or the court’s own motion, the court may strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The court may also “[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)

An immaterial or irrelevant allegation includes “(1) An allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense,” “(2)¿An allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense,” or “(3)¿A demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10.)

Doe Allegations

The Complaint alleges Does 1-10 “were the agents or employees or other named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment.” (Complaint, ¶ 6(a).) The Complaint also alleges Does 1-10 “are persons whose capacities are unknown to plaintiff.” (Complaint, ¶ 6(b).) Al Bayaan argues these allegations should be stricken because they present a fatal inconsistency. But Al Bayaan fails to cite to any legal authority that prohibits Delgado Serano from making these types of Doe allegations.

Accordingly, Al Bayaan’s motion to strike on this ground is DENIED.

Dangerous Condition Allegations

The Complaint alleges “[w]hile on the premises, Plaintiff slipped and fell from a ladder that was provided to him by Defendants, which became unstable and became a dangerous condition.” (Complaint, p. 4.) Al Bayaan argues that whether or not the ladder became a dangerous condition is irrelevant to Delgado Serano’s causes of action. But as discussed above with regards to the demurrer, the alleged dangerous condition of the ladder is relevant to determine if Al Bayaan breached a duty of care which caused Delgado Serano’s injuries.

Accordingly, Al Bayaan’s motion to strike on this ground is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Al Bayaan’s demurrer to Delgado Serano’s Complaint is OVERRULED.

Furthermore, Al Bayaan’s motion to strike portions of Delgado Serano’s Complaint is DENIED.

Defendant Al Bayaan Islamic Center, Inc. to file its Answer in ten (10) days.