Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23CHCV00356, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00356    Hearing Date: September 28, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 9-28-23 c/f 7-11-23

Case #23CHCV00356

Trial Date: Not Set

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant, City of San Fernando

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff, Maria Villalvazo

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Complaint

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On May 22, 2022, Plaintiff Maria Villalvazo triped and fell on an uneven portion of sidewalk pavement on or adjacent to the premises identified as 13811 Del Sur Street. On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Governmental Tort Liability and Negligence, Negligence, and Premises Liability. Defendant County of Los Angeles answered the complaint on March 20, 2023. On September 1, 2023, City of Los Angeles answered the complaint and filed cross-complaint against City of San Fernando for Indemnification, Apportionment of Fault, and Declaratory Relief.

RULING: Sustained with Leave to Amend.

Request for Judicial Notice: Granted.

The court takes judicial notice that the address of 13811 Del Sur Street falls outside the jurisdictional boundary for the government entity identified as the City of San Fernando. [Declaration of Allison Hilgers, Ex. A.] (Evid. Code, § 452; Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1145.)

Defendant City of San Fernando submits the subject demurrer on grounds that the underlying incident occurred on or a near pavement outside the City of San Fernando jurisdictional boundary. Plaintiff in opposition challenges any finding via demurrer on a “disputed” fact. Plaintiff then proceeds to defend the merits of the substantive allegations, including an argument that “the Public Record is unequivocally clear that the property where [the] trip and fall occurred is squarely within the city of San Fernando.” Plaintiff alternatively requests leave to amend. City of San Fernando in reply maintains Plaintiff is bound by the allegations in the complaint regarding the identified address. The court can take judicial notice of the address. The complaint is not reasonably subject to amendment.

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) 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 applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

The operative complaint specifically and unequivocally identifies the address of the trip and fall “as at or around” 13811 Del Sur Street. [Comp., ¶ 9.] Consistent with the request for judicial notice, the court finds the identified address of 13811 Del Sur Street, the alleged location of the trip and fall, constitutes an identified address outside the City of San Fernando jurisdiction. Plaintiff cannot state a claim for liability against City of San Fernando based on a location outside its own jurisdictional boundary. (Gov. Code, § 835, subd. (a).)

Notwithstanding this undisputed evidence regarding the address itself, Plaintiff seeks to allege that the “adjacent” property to the identified address falls into City of San Fernando jurisdiction. Plaintiff cites to the Assessor Parcel Number, but otherwise offers no counter support via judicial notice, and instead effectively doubles down on the allegations in the operative complaint. Because the court is limited to the four corners of the pleading and judicially noticeable information, the court accepts the possibility, for purposes of the subject demurrer ONLY, that the “adjacent” property in an undisclosed location identified as part of the assessor parcel number straddles the City of San Fernando jurisdictional line. The court makes this conclusion on the basis that it lacks an ability to verify the assessor parcel boundary notwithstanding the acceptance of the map contained in the request for judicial notice establishing the address boundary outside City of San Fernando, and the allegations in the complaint.

The court therefore sustains the demurrer with 15 days leave to amend. The court grants Plaintiff leave only for purposes of alleging a claim seeking to establish jurisdiction within the City of San Fernando based on the claim that the assessor parcel number of the identified property straddles both the City of Los Angeles and the City of San Fernando, notwithstanding the judicially noticeable indisputable evidence that the identified address presented in the complaint places the property identified outside the City of San Fernando. Any material changes to the operative complaint seeking to alter the address of the location in order to place the location into the City of San Fernando on an otherwise geographically established location outside the City of San Fernando may be subject to a demurrer under the sham pleading standard.

Case Management Conference set for November 27, 2023.

Defendant to give notice.