Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV00713, Date: 2024-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00713    Hearing Date: July 29, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant GM Coach Inc.’s Demurrer to Complaint

Respondent: OPPOSITION untimely filed by Plaintiff

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant GM Coach’s Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED with twenty (20) days leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful death action arising from the death of a tour bus operator. In September 2023, Ziheng Li was operating a tour bus for Defendants Gary Meng and GM Coach Inc. (GM Coach) in the Yellowstone National Park when Ziheng Li suffered a fatal cerebral hemorrhage. Plaintiff Yonghong Li, Ziheng Li’s mother, alleges Meng was overworking Ziheng Li by requiring Ziheng Li to drive a bus from Los Angeles to the Yellowstone National Park while GM Coach’s other drivers were allowed to travel by plane. At the time, Yonghong Li alleges Meng was aware of Ziheng Li’s poor health condition.

On March 11, 2024, Yonghong Li filed a complaint against Meng, GM Coach, and Does 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) wrongful death, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

On June 28, 2024, GM Coach filed the present demurrer. On the same day, Meng also filed a demurrer. Prior to filing on May 9, 2024, GM Coach’s counsel met and conferred telephonically with Yonghong Li’s counsel and was unable to reach a resolution. (Lin Decl., ¶ 5.)

A hearing on the present demurrer is set for July 29, 2024. A hearing on Meng’s demurrer is also set for July 30, 2024, with a case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service set for August 5, 2024.

ANALYSIS

GM Coach demurs to Yonghong Li’s entire Complaint. For the following reasons, the court SUSTAINS GM Coach’s demurrer with leave to amend.

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.)

Negligence Causes of Action (First, Second, and Third Causes of Action)

GM Coach argues Yonghong Li’s first cause of action for negligence, second cause of action for negligence per se, and third cause of action for wrongful death are insufficiently pled. The court agrees.

Legal Standard

The basic elements of a negligence claim are (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, and (4) damages. (Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 480.) Because “[a]llegations of negligence have long been exempted from the code pleading requirement to state the facts constituting the cause of action,” it may be pleaded generally. (McCoy v. Gustafson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 56, 102.) A cause of action for wrongful death requires “a tort, such as negligence, and resulting death.” (Lopez v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 675, 685.)

“The negligence per se doctrine, as codified in Evidence Code section 669, creates a presumption of negligence if four elements are established: ‘(1) the defendant violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity; (2) the violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; (3) the death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the nature of which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and (4) the person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted.’” (Spates v. Dameron Hospital Assn. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 208, 218, quoting Galvez v. Frields (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420.)

Discussion

In this case, the Complaint alleges Meng and GM Coach owed Ziheng Li a duty of care to “own, keep safe, install, [and] maintain in a reasonable manner.” (Complaint, ¶ 14.) The Complaint also alleges they owned Ziheng Li a duty of care to “drive prudently, safely and within the bounds of the law, including a duty to exercise reasonable care, reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, while driving a motor vehicle on a roadway.” (Complaint, ¶ 15.) As to breach, the Complaint alleges Meng and GM Coach breached their duty of care by requiring Ziheng Li “to work beyond normal working hours.” (Complaint, ¶ 16.)

The Complaint fails to establish, however, how allegedly overworking Ziheng Li was a breach of Meng and GM Coach’s duty to safely maintain and operate a motor vehicle since the bus is not the alleged cause of Ziheng Li’s cerebral hemorrhage. Instead, the Complaint alleges Zhiheng Li’s death was caused by the confluence of preexisting health issues and overwork. (Complaint, ¶ 16.)

As to the cause of action for negligence per se, the court  finds the Complaint fails to allege the statutes or regulations that were allegedly violated by Meng and GM Coach. Thus, the Complaint fails to adequately allege the elements of duty, breach, and causation.

Accordingly, GM Coach’s demurrer to these causes of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

IIED (Fourth Cause of Action)

GM Coach contends Yonghong Li’s fourth cause of action for IIED fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim. The court agrees.

Legal Standard

To establish a claim of IIED, one must show “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.” (Wilson v. Hynek (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 999, 1009, quoting Cervantez v. J.C. Penney Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 579, 593.) Extreme and outrageous conduct is defined as exceeding “all bounds of decency usually tolerated by a decent society” and intending to cause mental distress. (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 618.)

Discussion

In this case, the Complaint alleges Meng and GM Coach’s alleged negligent conduct in overworking Ziheng Li was intended to cause Yonghong Li to suffer emotional distress. (Complaint, ¶ 30-31.) The Complaint also alleges Meng and GM Coach failed to timely notify Yonghong Li of Ziheng Li’s death and return Ziheng Li’s phone. (Complaint, ¶ 13.) But such conduct must be “directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the defendant is aware.” (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903.) Here, the Complaint fails to allege any facts beyond conclusory allegations that establish Meng and GM Coach were aware of Yonghong Li and directed their actions at Yonghong Li or caused Ziheng Li’s death in Yonghong Li’s presence.

Accordingly, GM Coach’s demurrer to this cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, GM Coach’s demurrer to Yonghong Li’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with twenty (20) days leave to amend.