Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV34508, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34508    Hearing Date: October 10, 2022    Dept: 29

Luis V. Castro, Jr. v. Karmen Yeghiazaryan, et al.

Demurrer filed by Defendant My Car Enterprises, Inc.

TENTATIVE

Defendant My Car Enterprises Inc.’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law ….” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525).) 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. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.) 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, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) 

Meet and Confer

The demurrer is accompanied by the declaration of Mark J. Zimet which satisfies the meet and confer requirements. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a).)

Discussion

Defendant first argues that the demurrer should be sustained because Plaintiff has not stated sufficient facts against it because the complaint contains conclusory statements, and fails to allege any material facts supporting each legal conclusion.

However, Plaintiff has pled ownership liability against Defendant.  Under California law, every owner of a motor vehicle is liable and responsible for injuries caused by an individual operating the vehicle with the owner’s permission. (See Cal. Vehicle Code, § 17150; Marquez v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 319, 322; Rashtian v. BRAC-BH, Inc. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1847, 1852.)  As Plaintiff has pled ownership, the demurrer cannot be sustained for failure to plead sufficient facts.  (See Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 992, 998 (stating that the sustaining of a demurrer may only be upheld if the complaint fails to state a cause of action under any possible legal theory).) 

The demurrer is overruled on this ground.

            Graves Amendment

Defendant contends cannot be held liable based on vicarious liability under 49 U.S.C. section 30106(a).  49 U.S.C. section 30106(a) (“Graves Amendment”) states: 

(a) In general.-- An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if— 

(1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and 

(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner). 

(42 U.S.C. § 30106.) 

First, there are no allegations in the complaint that Defendant is engaged in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles. The Court therefore cannot determine that the Graves Amendment applies to Defendant at the pleading stage. Additionally, Plaintiff has sufficiently advanced a negligent entrustment theory of liability against Defendant. As these allegations are premised on Defendant’s own negligence and not on Defendant’s mere ownership of the rented vehicle, Defendant has failed to show that the Graves Amendment is applicable based on the complaint.

As such, the demurrer is also overruled on this ground.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Demurrer to is OVERRULED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.