Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV00005, Date: 2024-05-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00005    Hearing Date: May 20, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant City of La Habra’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs Haichang Lu and Yankun Zhang’s Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant City of La Habra’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs Haichang Lu and Yankun Zhang’s Complaint is OVERRULED.

The City is ordered to file its Answer in ten (10) days.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from an automobile collision. In December 2022, Defendant James Delvin Vlietstra collided with Plaintiffs Haichang Lu and Yankun Zhang’s vehicle while operating a vehicle eastbound on State Route 60 in Diamond Bar.

On January 2, 2024, Lu and Zhang filed a complaint against Vlietstra, the City of La Habra (the City), and Does 1-10, alleging (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence.

On April 2, 2024, the City filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing on March 25, 2024, the City’s counsel met and conferred telephonically with Lu and Zhang’s counsel. (Spearman Decl., ¶ 4.)

A hearing on the demurrer is set for May 20, 2024, along with a case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service on May 28, 2024.

ANALYSIS

The City demurs to Lu and Zhang’s entire Complaint on the grounds that the Complaint fails to allege a statutory basis for the City’s liability. For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES the City’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.)

Public Entity Liability

“[I]n California, all governmental tort liability is dependent upon the existence of an authorizing statute or ‘enactment.’” (Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 798.) Pursuant to Government Code section 815.2, subdivision (a), “A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative.”

Discussion

In this case, the City argues the Complaint fails to allege the statutory basis for the City’s liability. (Demurrer, p. 3:5-19.) While the City is correct in arguing such a statutory basis must exist, the City fails to provide any authority that requires a pleading to state the specific statute. Instead, the court finds the Complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a cause of action against a public entity pursuant to Government Code section 815.2, subdivision (a). As noted above, this section allows a public entity to be held liable for injuries caused by its employees while acting within their scope of employment if they themselves can be held liable.

Here, the Complaint allege Vlietstra was an employee of the City who was acting within the scope of the City’s employment when Vlietstra collided with Lu and Zhang. (Complaint, p. 4.) Because the City does not argue the Complaint fails to state a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Vlietstra, the court finds these allegations are sufficient to establish the City’s liability for Vlietstra’s collision pursuant to Government Code section 815.2, subdivision (a).

Accordingly, the City’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the City’s demurrer to Lu and Zhang’s Complaint is OVERRULED.

The City is ordered to file its Answer in ten (10) days.