Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV19350, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV19350 Hearing Date: October 6, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
The Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s demurrer to the first and second causes of action in the complaint with 30 days leave to amend. The Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to state a valid cause of action.
Meet and Confer
The Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has been met pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41.
Judicial Notice
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for judicial notice.
Legal Standard
A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law.” (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.) “[T]he court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded.” (Ibid.) In testing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.) Accordingly, “[w]hether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer.” (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609-10.)
A general demurrer may be taken to a complaint where “[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) Although Courts construe pleadings liberally, sufficient facts must be alleged to support the allegations plead to survive a demurrer. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Serv. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 39, 43.) “Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. If the complaint fails to plead, or if the defendant negates, any essential element of a particular cause of action, this court should affirm the sustaining of a demurrer.” (Ibid.)
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. (Ibid.) 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).
Discussion
Defendant contends that: (1) Plaintiff lacks sufficient facts to support his causes of action for negligence and premises liability; and (2) the statute of limitations time bars Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and premises liability.
Issue No. 1: Lack of Sufficient Facts to Support the First and Second Causes of Action
To succeed in a negligence action, the plaintiff must show the following: (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty; (2) the defendant breached the duty; and (3) the breach proximately or legally caused the plaintiff’s damages or injuries. (Thomas v. Stenberg (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 654, 662.) The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence. (Jones v. Awad (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1200, 1207.)
Here, the complaint is set forth on a judicial council PLD-PI-001 form; however, the complaint sets forth no facts at all. Paragraph 10 of the complaint states that the general negligence and premises liability causes of action are attached thereto but such attachments are not present. In its current iteration, the complaint does not allege duty, breach, or proximate and legal causation.
Thus, the first and second causes of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Issue No.2: Statute of Limitations
Defendant contends that the first and second causes of action fail because they are both time barred by the statute of limitations. In support of this contention, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff previously filed a complaint against Defendant, which was dismissed for failure to prosecute the action. (Defendant’s RJN at Exhibits 1 and 2.)
Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 provides for a two-year statute of limitations for an action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.
Here, the Court finds that Defendant is improperly relying on a declaration of its counsel to support its argument that the causes of action in the complaint are barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant contends that “Plaintiff, who is in pro per, admitted that the date of the injury for the case was November 23, 2016 and that the Prior Complaint was based on the same incident as the current Complaint.” (Demurrer at 5:1-4; Fisher Decl., ¶ 4 and Exhibit A.) The Court cannot consider any evidence or extrinsic matters in ruling on Defendant’s demurrer. Moreover, the current complaint contains no factual allegations making it impossible to ascertain whether the instant action arises from the same facts as the prior case that Plaintiff brought against Defendant or an entirely different incident.
Thus, on demurrer, and considering only the allegations in the complaint and judicially noticeable facts, the Court is unable to determine whether the instant action is or is not barred by the statute of limitations. The Court does not sustain the demurrer on the grounds of the statute of limitations. Instead, the Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer based on the complaint’s failure to state a cause of action.
Conclusion
3The Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s demurrer to the first and second causes of action in the complaint with 30 days leave to amend. The Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to state a valid cause of action.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.