Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV24414, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24414    Hearing Date: December 13, 2022    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

22STCV24414 Christian A. Estupinan v. Airtel Hotel Plaza

The Demurrer filed by Defendant RBABS Investments #7, LLC dba Airtel Plaza Hotel, erroneously sued as Airtel Hotel Plaza is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. The Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.

Background

               This action arises out of conditions concerning a hotel that partnered with the L.A. Homeless Services Authority to provide temporary shelter for people experiencing homelessness.

               On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff Christian A. Estupinan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant RBABS Investments #7, LLC dba Airtel Plaza Hotel (“Defendant”), erroneously sued as Airtel Hotel Plaza, alleging the sole cause of action for premises liability.

               On October 7, 2022, Defendant filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

I.                 Demurrer

               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 on 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.)

               Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.) However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).

II.               Motion to Strike

               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(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(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(a), (b).)

Discussion

               As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that Defendant has complied with the service requirements under Code of Civil Procedure § 1005, and based on the declaration provided, it attempted to comply with the meet and confer requirements under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.41 and 435.5 but Plaintiff did not respond. (Harwin Decls. ¶ 3.)

I.                 Demurrer

Defendant demurs to the complaint on the ground that it sufficient facts have not been pleaded to support the sole cause of action of premises liability. (Demurrer at pp. 5-7.)

The elements of a negligence and premises liability cause of action are the same: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property in order to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. (Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.)  “[T]he exceptions to the general rule imposed liability on the lessor of property when the lessor volunteered or contracted to repair the premises and failed to do so, when the lessor knew of an undisclosed danger, when the leased premises were to be open to the public and there was a known dangerous condition, when the injuries occurred in an area which remained under the landlord’s control, when the landlord negligently repaired, and when a safety law was violated.” (Mora v. Baker Commodities, Inc. (1989) 210 Cal. App. 3d 775, 778 fn. 5.)

               Here, Defendant argues the complaint consists of allegations of “non-actionable trivial issues” that are unable to support a premises liability claim. (Demurrer at pg. 6 relying on Stathouhs v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 559, 567 and Whiting v. City of National City (1937) 9 Cal.2d 163.)

               Upon review of the complaint, the Court finds that Defendant’s argument has merit. As alleged, Plaintiff presents the following defects in an attempt to support his premises liability claim: (1) repeated instances of slander and defamatory remarks and threats by strangers in the hotel (Compl. at pp. 1:20-24, 2:10-12, 20-28); (2) the malfunctioning of a fire alarm that caused the sprinklers to turn on in room 144 (Id. at pg. 1:24-28); and (3) staying in a different room for a period of three months that consisted of a damaged ceiling, wall, and fire alarm. (Id. at pg. 2:5-8.) With regard to the slanderous and defamatory remarks and threats, the complaint concedes that these were made by strangers, and there is no indication that these individuals were employed by Defendant. Thus, on the face of the complaint, there is no basis for why Defendant should be liable for the conduct of these strangers.

               Next, as to the fire alarm that malfunctioned in room 144, the complaint alleges that Defendant’s hotel staff managed to turn off the sprinklers the next day, and Plaintiff’s request to be transferred to a different room was granted. While this occurrence would have been an inconvenience and an annoyance, reasonable steps were taken to correct the issue, and it is unclear how Plaintiff was damaged.

               Lastly, with regard to the conditions found in room 316, the complaint fails to allege that Defendant was ever notified of the alleged defects and that it failed to take reasonable steps to correct them. (See Howard v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 403, 431.) Additionally, it is unclear how Plaintiff was harmed as a result of these defects. Also, while Plaintiff alleges that he documented several hazardous conditions on the property, such documentation has not been attached to the complaint. Ultimately, it appears that Plaintiff’s primary grievance stems from the conduct of third parties, but as stated above, such conduct is not attributable to Defendant without further facts.    

               Accordingly, the Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer. While Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition, the Court shall afford Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his pleadings to allege the dangerous conditions of the property, Defendant’s knowledge of these dangerous condition, and how Plaintiff was damaged due to these dangerous conditions. 

II.               Motion to Strike

               Because the demurrer has been sustained, the motion to strike is denied as moot.

Conclusion

               Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED as moot.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.