Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV01654, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV01654    Hearing Date: November 13, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs Candice Ruppert and Kenneth Ruppert’s First Amended Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiffs Candice Ruppert and Kenneth Ruppert

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs Candice Ruppert and Kenneth Ruppert’s First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED IN PART as to the first cause of action and SUSTAINED IN PART with twenty (20) days leave to amend as to the second cause of action.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) is a transportation network company that provides rides to passengers. Defendant Rasier, LLC (Rasier) handles all payment transactions between Uber and its drivers while Defendant Checkr, Inc. (Checkr) runs background checks and screenings of drivers for Uber. In October 2022, Plaintiffs Candice Ruppert and Kenneth Ruppert ordered a ride from Uber and were picked by Uber’s driver, Defendant Xiuhe Huang. During the drive, the Rupperts allege Huang was utilizing other transportation and delivery applications. As an alleged result of these distractions, Huang rear-ended another motor vehicle at a high rate of speed that was operated by Plaintiff Erma Cabugnason.

On May 21, 2024, the Rupperts filed a complaint against Uber, Huang, and Does 1-10, alleging causes of action for (1) negligence and (2) negligent hiring, supervision, and training.

On June 5, 2024, Cabugnason filed a complaint against Uber, Huang, and Does 1-50, alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence.

On July 26, 2024, the Rupperts filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Uber, Checkr, Rasier, Huang, and Does 1-10, alleging causes of action for (1) negligence and (2) negligent hiring, supervision, and training.

On September 25, 2024, Checkr filed a demurrer and then withdrew it. On October 15, 2024, Checkr filed the present demurrer. Prior to filing on September 5, 2024, Checkr’s counsel met and conferred telephonically with the Rupperts’ counsel and was unable to reach a resolution. (Jindal Decl., ¶ 4.)

A hearing on the demurrer is set for November 13, 2024, along with a case management conference and a hearing on a motion to be admitted pro hac vice. An informal discovery conference is also set for November 26, 2024.

ANALYSIS

Checkr demurs to the Rupperts’ entire FAC. For the following reasons, the court OVERRULES Checkr’s demurrer to the first cause of action and SUSTAINS Checkr’s demurrer to the second cause of action 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 (First Cause of Action)

Checkr argues the Rupperts’ first cause of action for negligence fails because they did not adequately plead breach and causation. The court disagrees.

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.)

Discussion

In this case, the FAC alleges Checkr failed to conduct a thorough background check of Huang which would have uncovered Huang’s unsafe driving history. (FAC, ¶ 25-26.) Checkr argues this allegation is insufficient because federal law prohibits agencies like Checkr from reporting all criminal conduct and driving history. (Demurrer, p. 6:5-11.) They point to the Federal Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) which prohibits a “consumer reporting agency” from providing reports that contain “[c]ivil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period.” (15 U.S.C., § 1681c, subd. (a)(2).) The FCRA also prohibits consumer reporting agencies from reporting “[a]ny other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years.” (15 U.S.C., § 1681c, subd. (a)(5).)

This argument fails, however, since there are no allegations in the FAC that establish Huang’s driving report included information outside of the seven-year period imposed by the FCRA. Thus, on their face, the allegations of Checkr’s alleged breach are not foreclosed by federal consumer reporting requirements. Checkr also argues these allegations are not made with particularity since the FAC does not specify which incidents in Huang’s driving record are at issue. (Demurrer, p. 6:12-23.) But, such specificity is not required here as negligence may be alleged generally.

Accordingly, the court OVERRULES Checkr’s demurrer to this cause of action.

Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Training (Second Cause of Action)

Checkr contends the Rupperts’ second cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, and training fails because the FAC does not allege Checkr was Huang’s employer. The court agrees/disagrees.

Legal Standard

The elements of a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision are: (1) the employer’s hiring, retaining, or supervising an employee; (2) the employee was incompetent or unfit; (3) the employer had reason to believe undue risk of harm would exist because of the employment; and (4) harm occurs. (Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 828, 836-837.)

Discussion

In this case, the Rupperts admit they failed to allege Huang was Checkr’s employee. (Opp., p. 6:21-22.) They request leave to amend the FAC to include allegations Checkr was negligent in hiring, supervising, and training its employees in performing background checks. (Opp., p. 6:23-7:12.)

Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS Checkr’s demurrer to this cause of action with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Checkr’s demurrer to the Rupperts’ FAC is OVERRULED as to the first cause of action and SUSTAINED as to the second cause of action with twenty (20) leave to amend.