Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV18050, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV18050 Hearing Date: March 29, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Enterprise Rent-A-Car of Los Angeles LLC’s Demurrer
is OVERRULED in part and SUSTAINED, with leave to amend, in part. The demurrer
is overruled as to the causes of action for negligence and motor vehicle
negligence, but sustained with 30 days leave to amend as to the cause of action
for negligent hiring, supervision and retention.
Judicial Notice
Defendant requests
judicial notice of the Statement of Information for Enterprise filed with the
California Secretary of State. The Court takes judicial notice of the filings
of these documents as the filing is an official act of California. (See Evid.
Code § 452, subd. (c).) However, the Court cannot take judicial notice of the
facts within these documents as they are reasonably subject to dispute and are
not capable of immediate and accurate determination. (See Evid. Code § 452,
subd. (h).)
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.)
Demurrers
for uncertainty are strictly construed, because discovery can be used for
clarification, and apply where defendants cannot reasonably determine what
issues or claims are stated. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14
Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter
Group 2011) ¶¶7:85-7:86.) “A demurrer for uncertainty will not lie where the
ambiguous facts alleged are presumptively within the knowledge of the demurring
party.” (Bacon v. Wahrhaftig (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 599, 605.)
Meet and
Confer
The
demurrer is accompanied by the declaration of Adam Miller, which satisfies the
meet and confer requirements. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a).)
Discussion
Defendant argues
that the demurrer should be sustained because Plaintiff has not stated
sufficient facts against it because the complaint contains conclusory
statements.
The elements for
negligence are: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care; (2)
breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. (County
of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)
Here, 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).) While Defendant takes issue with the negligent entrustment claims
asserted within the causes of action for negligence and motor vehicle
negligence, a demurrer does not lie to only part of a cause of action. If there are
sufficient allegations to entitle plaintiff to relief, other allegations
cannot be challenged by general demurrer. (Daniels v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th
1150, 1167.) Thus, the Court cannot entertain this
demurrer to only a portion of Plaintiff’s causes of action.
The demurrer is
overruled on this ground.
Graves
Amendment
Defendant also contends it 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.)
There
are no allegations in the FAC that Defendant is engaged in the business of
renting or leasing motor vehicles. While Defendant argues that the FAC
expressly alleges that the vehicle was rented, it does not state that Defendant
is engaged in the business of renting vehicles. Further, the Court has declined
to take judicial notice of the truth of the matters asserted within the
Secretary of State Statement of Information for Enterprise. The Court therefore
cannot determine that the Graves Amendment applies to Defendant at the pleading
stage. Defendant may instead opt to file a motion for summary judgment at a
later point in the proceedings and present evidence as to this point.
As such,
the demurrer is overruled as to this argument.
Negligent
Hiring, Supervision, and Retention
“[A]n employer can be liable to a third person for
negligently hiring, supervising, or retaining an unfit employee.” (Doe
v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1054.) To establish a
cause of action for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision, a plaintiff
must show that the employer knew or should have known that hiring the employee
created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm occurs. (See Z.V. v. County of Riverside (2015)
238 Cal.App.4th 889, 902; see also Doe, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1054.) To be liable for negligent supervision and hiring, there must
be a connection between the employment and injury. (Mendoza v. City of
Los Angeles (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1341.) “Liability for
negligent hiring and supervision is based upon the reasoning that if an
enterprise hires individuals with characteristics which might pose a danger to
customers or other employees, the enterprise should bear the loss caused by the
wrongdoing of its incompetent or unfit employees. (Id. at
1339.) “The tort has development in California in factual settings where
the plaintiff’s injury occurred in the workplace, or the contact between the
plaintiff and the employee was generated by the employment relationship.”
(Id. at pp. 1339-1340.)
Defendant argues that an employment
relationship between Defendant and Doe 1 is not sufficiently alleged, and
that there is no mention as to how Defendant’s conduct was negligent. First, the FAC alleges that Doe 1 was driving
the vehicle that struck Plaintiffs’ vehicle. (FAC, ¶ 9.) It further alleges that Doe 1 was
acting within the course and scope of his duties for his employer(s),
Defendants, including Doe 2, which is Demurring Defendant. (Id., ¶ 23.) Further, the FAC alleges Defendant was negligent
and reckless in its hiring, training, and supervision, and/or retention of
Defendant Doe 1 in that they knew or should have known that Doe 1 was unfit for
the specific and mandatory tasks to be carried out and performed during the
course and scope of employment which was the legal and proximate cause of
Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages. (Id., ¶ 24.) Defendant has not elaborated on its argument
as to why the employment relationship has not been sufficiently alleged, and
the Court finds it is sufficient. However, regarding how Defendant was
negligent in hiring Doe 1, Defendant’s argument has merit. “Ordinarily, negligence may be alleged in general terms,
without specific facts showing how the injury occurred, but there are “limits
to the generality with which a plaintiff is permitted to state his cause of
action, and ... the plaintiff must indicate the acts or omissions which are
said to have been negligently performed. He may not recover upon the bare
statement that the defendant's negligence has caused him injury.” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518,
527.) The Court observes that in the opposition Plaintiffs argue they have
properly pled a cause of action for Negligent Hiring, Retention, and
Supervision against Enterprise for its failures with respect to allowing an
employee free reign in using the company vehicle without any training and/or
supervision, but as Defendant argues, this was not pled in the FAC. For this reason, the Court finds the demurrer must be
sustained as to Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision,
and retention.
The Court notes
that Defendant argues for the first time in the reply that the FAC fails to allege any facts
concerning Enterprise’s knowledge of Doe 1’s unfitness to carry out work tasks.
However, the Court will not consider this argument as it was raised for the
first time in the reply without providing Plaintiffs an opportunity to respond.
Uncertainty
Lastly,
Defendant argues the complaint is uncertain because it comprises of conflicting
allegations and theories of liability against Defendant, a party being brought
in by way of Doe amendment, which renders it impossible to discern the scope of
allegations being made against it in order to provide it with sufficient notice
of the basis of the liability alleged against it.
However,
a party may plead alternative legal
theories and make inconsistent allegations in the pleading. (See Mendoza
v. Rast Produce Co., Inc. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1402; Rader Co.
v. Stone (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 10, 29.) Moreover, a demurrer for
uncertainty will not lie where the ambiguous facts alleged are presumptively
within the knowledge of the demurring party.” (Bacon v. Wahrhaftig (1950)
97 Cal.App.2d 599, 605.)
Conclusion
Based on
the foregoing, Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED in part and SUSTAINED, with
leave to amend, in part. The demurrer is overruled as to the causes of action
for negligence and motor vehicle negligence, but sustained with 30 days leave
to amend as to the cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision and
retention.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice.