SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT V 

 

 

¿¿JOSEPH MICHAELS¿¿,¿    ¿¿Plaintiff¿,      vs.      ¿¿WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.¿¿, et al.,¿    ¿¿Defendants¿.	Case No.:	20STCV26354
	Hearing Date:	¿¿February 23, 2024¿
	Time:	9:00 a.m.
	[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:      DEFENDANT ARRI AMERICAS, INC.’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMNEDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

 

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendant ARRI Americas, Inc., formerly known as ARRI Inc.  

 RESPONDING PARTY:       None filed.  

 Demurrer and Motion to Strike 

 

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with the demurrer and motion. No opposition has been filed. 

 BACKGROUND  

Plaintiff Joseph Michaels (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendants Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Warner Bros. Worldwide Television Distribution Inc., Bonanza Productions Inc., and Showtime Networks, Inc. based on injuries Plaintiff alleges he sustained when camera parts and/or accessories fell and struck Plaintiff on the head around July 11, 2018. 

 

On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed Amendments to Complaint substituting in ARRI Inc. and ARRI Americas Inc. for Doe 26 and Doe 27, respectively. 

 

On July 28, 2023, Defendant ARRI Americas, Inc., formerly known as ARRI Inc., filed the instant demurrer to the FAC, arguing that the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action are uncertain and have not been sufficiently alleged. Additionally, Defendant ARRI Americas, Inc. (hereinafter, “ARRI”) moves to strike the portions of the FAC that support Plaintiff’s claim of punitive damages.  

 

No opposition has been filed.  

 LEGAL STANDARD 

 

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)  “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.”  (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)  For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded.  (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966–967.)  A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.”  (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)  

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.)  “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially

noticed.  [Citation.]” (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].) Allegations are to be liberally construed.  (Code Civ. Proc., §452.)  A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)   

“If substantial facts which constitute a cause of action are averred in the complaint or can be inferred by reasonable intendment from the matters which are pleaded, although the allegations of these facts are intermingled with conclusions of law, the complaint is not subject to demurrer for insufficiency.” (Krug v. Meeham (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 274, 277.)   

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, strike “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).)  The court may also strike “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 moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subds. (a), (b).)   

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.41 and 435.5 require that prior to filing a demurrer or motion to strike, the demurring or moving party “shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer or motion.   

DISCUSSION  

In a declaration attached to ARRI’s demurrer, counsel attached a written meet and confer letter sent July 21, 2023, and states only that plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond.  However, in a separate declaration filed in support of a motion to continue the trial date filed December 6, 2023, ARRI’s counsel stated that a meet and confer had occurred and that Plaintiff’s counsel had agreed to file an amended complaint.  (Caliguieri Decl. ¶ 4)  On that representation, the court continued the hearing date on this matter from November 17, 2023 to February 23, 2024.   

As of the date of the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel has neither filed an opposition to the demurrer nor an amended complaint. Accordingly, before proceeding on the merits of the demurrer and motion to strike, the court orders the parties to file a joint statement regarding the meet and confer and the status of the amended complaint.  The hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike is continued to April 16, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in this department. 

 

Defendant ARRI Americas, Inc. is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 DATED:  ¿February 23, 2024¿ 

 _____________________________ 

Sarah J. Heidel 

Judge of the Superior Court