Judge Sarah J. Heidel, Case Number: 22STCV33251, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 22STCV33251, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33251 Hearing Date: August 6, 2024 Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

LACHICA OUSLEY, an individual, ANGELIQUE JOHNSON OUSLEY, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS / SUED HOLLYWOOD STAY LLC HOTEL; SHERRI HOODWORTH,

Defendants.

Case No.: 22STCV33251
Hearing Date: August 6, 2024
Time: 9:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT HOLLYWOOD STAY HOTEL, LLC’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant HOLLYWOOD STAY HOTEL, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Lachica Ousley (Ousley) and Angelique Johnson Ousley (collectively, plaintiffs) filed the complaint against defendants Hollywood Stay Hotel, LLC (Hollywood Stay), erroneously sued and served as Holiday Inn Express Hotel, and Sherri Hoodworth (collectively, defendants) on October 11, 2022. This case arises out of injuries sustained at defendants’ hotel, potentially from a treadmill.

On July 7, 2023, the court sustained Hollywood Stay’s demurrer with leave to amend. The court found that Plaintiff’s complaint did not sufficiently identify any cognizable causes of action to which defendants could reply. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (FAC) was rejected by the court for failure to include a case number. Plaintiffs sought leave of the court to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC). On February 2, 2024, the court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the SAC with 20 days leave to amend. The court found that the SAC does not cure the defects of plaintiffs’ complaint because the pleadings were still uncertain.

Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (TAC) on February 5, 2024. Hollywood Stay demurred to the TAC on April 23, 2024. No opposition has been filed.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Hollywood Stay requests the court to take judicial notice of the Third Amended Complaint. The court takes judicial notice of the TAC pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d).

LEGAL STANDARD

A party may object to a complaint or cross-complaint; the party may file a demurrer, an answer, or both. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 430.30.) The demurrer may be filed within 30 days after service of the complaint or cross-complaint unless extended by stipulation or court order. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.40(a).)

As a general matter, 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 pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Id.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

DISCUSSION

A. Meet and Confer

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a) requires that the moving party meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the demurrer. Hollywood Stay met and conferred with plaintiff via email on March 1, 2024, and telephone call on March 4, 2024. (Decl. of Danica J. Brustkern, ¶ 6; Exh. B.) Accordingly, this requirement has been met.

B. Demurrer

The court finds that the TAC does not cure the defects of the SAC because the pleadings are still uncertain. Uncertainty is defined as ambiguous and unintelligible by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10. A demurrer for uncertainty should be granted “if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.)

The TAC is a handwritten form complaint with an additional two handwritten pleading pages a lot of which is unintelligible and ambiguous.

The first page includes handwriting that is difficult to read and make sense of. The court gleans that Plaintiffs “want to recover compensation for being in pain cause of actions”. Plaintiffs allege “defendants held liable [for a] physical injury claim.” Other than that, what is understandable are the following words and phrases, “the essential elements to pleading a cause of injury”, “bad faith dangerous condition of property”, “punitive damages”, “a claim for liability condition of property”, and “10,000,000 million under California law”. This section does not provide allegations that defendant can reasonably respond to.

The second page provides little additional information besides the address of the Holiday Inn Express in Burbank and that injury to person or damage to personal property occurred in the jurisdictional area of the court.

On the third page, plaintiffs indicated that attachments for general negligence and premises liability causes of actions would be attached to the complaint. Plaintiffs also allege they suffered wage loss; general damages awarded for losses that are not easily quantifiable for example pain and suffering, physical pain, emotional distress, and mental anguish that the injured has suffered; and burns to shoulder rotator right shoulder. Plaintiffs also pray for punitive damages “defendant for outrageous conduct similar to which formed the basis of the lawsuit”. While plaintiffs alleged two distinct causes of action, general negligence and premises liability, plaintiffs fail to plead these causes of action with certainty in the rest of the TAC, as discussed below.

On the fourth and fifth pages, plaintiffs list the following: negligence, emotional distress, physical torts, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, chapter 6 product’s liability, and chapter 9 real property torts. Plaintiffs also include the following phrases: “what legally makes a product”; “what is the cause of action for product defect?”; “product liability is a doctrine that gives plaintiffs a consumer item this doctrine can fall under liability, meaning that defendants can be held liable regardless of their intent or knowledge”; and when the plaintiff proves that the product has a condition that makes it unsafe for other human beings.” These phrases are at most attempts at correct statements of law.

On the last two pages, from what the court can understand, plaintiffs allege that they are “suing the hotel premises for negligently not maintaining an equipment on the property.” Plaintiffs allege that in the state of California owners have a legal duty to maintain safe property conditions while adequately warning guests and visitors of hazard. Plaintiffs allege that premises liability include, among others, accidents resulting from property conditions like the case she is filing. Here, plaintiffs state plaintiffs include an adult and a minor child. Again, at most, plaintiffs are providing the applicable law for premises liability.

Plaintiffs also allege that they have all medical records, dates and pictures and video. Plaintiffs allege that the hotel did not call the ambulance when they ran to the front desk yelling, crying with severe bad injuries and burns. Plaintiffs allege that when they ran to the front desk crying and begging for help, they were given a first aid kit and told to go back to their room. Plaintiffs allege a yellow cab was called to the hotel with some papers printed out with an urgent care address the hotel referred them to. Plaintiffs allege they are traumatized. Plaintiffs allege they have video with the treadmill lifted up in the air from the back that would not stop running and Ousley falling forward and her two-year old daughter stuck underneath it.

Here, despite plaintiffs attempts to relate the events underlying the cause of action and listing causes of action, the TAC is still uncertain because large portions of it are unintelligible, Plaintiffs provide ambiguous details of what occurred on the premises and allege nothing beyond an accident at the hotel that involved a treadmill, Ousley and her daughter, and injuries and burns. Because the TAC is uncertain, defendant cannot reasonably respond to the TAC. This is the fourth attempt by plaintiff to cure the defects, and plaintiff has not opposed the demurrer. Although it is the rare case that the court will not grant leave to amend, the court finds it is appropriate to deny leave to amend here where plaintiffs have made four attempts to state a claim, have not filed responsive pleadings and have not asked for leave to amend.

Based on the foregoing, the court sustains defendant Hollywood Stay Hotel, LLC’s demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint, and grants its motion to dismiss.