Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03458, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCV03458    Hearing Date: August 29, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Jeremy David Guerrero’s Demurrer to Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiffs Himmer Ayala and Stephanie Ayala

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Jeremy David Guerrero’s Demurrer to Complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendant Guerrero is ordered to file an Answer in ten (10) days.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision. In May 2023, Plaintiffs Himmer Ayala and Stephanie Ayala were involved in a motor vehicle collision with Defendant Jeremy David Guerrero on Interstate 210 in La Verne. At the time of the collision, Guerrero was allegedly working on the behalf of the California Highway Patrol (CHP).

On November 6, 2023, the Ayalas filed a complaint against the State of California (the State), CHP, Guerrero, and Does 1-10, alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence.

On August 1, 2024, Guerrero filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing, Guerrero’s counsel met and conferred telephonically with the Ayalas’s counsel and was unable to reach a resolution. (Shepherd Decl., ¶ 2.)

A hearing on the demurrer is set for August 29, 2024, along with a case management conference/OSC Re: Default.

ANALYSIS

Guerrero demurs to the Ayalas’s entire Complaint on the grounds that Guerrero is immune from liability pursuant to Vehicle Code section 17004. For the following reasons, the court OVERRULES Guerrero’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.)

Vehicle Code § 17004

Pursuant to Vehicle Code section 17004, “A public employee is not liable for civil damages on account of personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the operation, in the line of duty, of an authorized emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency call or when in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm or other emergency call.”

Discussion

In this case, the Complaint establishes Guerrero was a public employee operating a CHP vehicle in the scope of Guerrero’s employment with CHP. (Complaint, p. 5.) But there are no allegations that establish if Guerrero was responding to an emergency call or pursing another vehicle. While Guerrero provides a declaration with additional details, the court’s review at the demurrer stage is limited to the four corners of the pleadings and the court cannot consider additional evidence.

Accordingly, Guerrero’s demurrer on this ground is OVERRULED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Guerrero’s demurrer to the Ayalas’s Complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendant Guerrero is ordered to file an Answer in ten (10) days.