Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV04053, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04053    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 29

Demurrer of Defendant County of Los Angeles to First Amended Complaint

Tentative

The Demurrer of County of Los Angeles is OVERRULED.

Background

Plaintiff Maria Diaz Morales (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on August 18, 2022, a dangerous condition in or around Banc of California Stadium, located at 3939 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California, caused her to trip, fall, and sustain injuries. 

On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action, asserting causes of action for a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835, vicarious liability, premises liability, and negligence against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”), City of Los Angeles (“City”), State of California (“State”), Major League Soccer, LLC (“MLS”), Exposition Park, LAFC Partners, LLP (“LAFC”), and Does 1 through 100.

LAFC, MLS, State (on its own behalf and on behalf of erroneously named defendant Exposition Park), and City filed Answers to the Complaint.  County demurred.  On June 9, 2023, the Court sustained County’s demurrer and granted Plaintiff leave to amend as to the first cause of action (for dangerous condition of public property) only.

On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”).  In the FAC, Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: (1) dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835, against County, City, State, and Does 1 through 50; (2) premises liability, against MLS, Exposition Park, LAFC, and Does 51 through 75; and (3) negligence, against MLS, Exposition Park, LAFC, and Does 76 through 100.

LAFC, MLS, State, and City filed Answers to the FAC.

On October 4, 2023, County filed a Demurrer to the FAC.  Plaintiff filed her opposition on October 19, and County filed its reply on October 30, 2023. The hearing was initially scheduled for November 14, 2023, and was continued, on the Court’s own motion, to January 17, 2024.

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.) 

Discussion

The demurrer is accompanied by the declaration of Allen L. Thomas that demonstrates compliance with the statutory meet and confer requirement.

Plaintiff asserts one cause of action against County, for a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835.  For a statutory cause of action, “every fact essential to the existence of statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity, including the existence of a statutory duty.”  (Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802; see also, e.g., Mittenhuber v. City of Redondo Beach (1983) 142 Cal. App. 3d 1.)  In sustaining the Demurrer to the original Complaint, the Court held that Plaintiff had not done so, noting that Plaintiff had not alleged (1) the nature of the dangerous condition or (2) the location of the condition.  As the Court explained, as far as was alleged in the Complaint, “the fall could have occurred anywhere within” Banc of California Stadium, or “on the adjacent streets.”  (Minute Order dated June 9, 2023, at p. 4.)

In an attempt to address the defects identified by the Court, Plaintiff now alleges in the FAC that the dangerous condition was that there were “traffic spikes, cover and bolts on the floor of the walkway/parking lot leading to the entrance of the subject property” that were allowed “to protrude out and upward thereby causing plaintiff to trip and fall sustaining injuries.  (FAC, ¶ 9.) 

This new allegation is sufficient to cure the defects previously identified by the Court.  The nature of the dangerous condition is described with sufficient particularity, as is the location of the condition (on “the walkway/parking lot leading to the entrance of the subject property”).  County points out that the FAC also alleges that the dangerous condition was located “at or near [the] corner of 3939 S. Figueroa St.” (FAC, ¶ 8) and argues that the FAC therefore is ambiguous and identifies two separate places for the dangerous condition, but the Court, in ruling on a demurrer, must read the allegations of the FAC in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff.  Here, the FAC can be read not to be ambiguous but rather to allege that the location of the dangerous condition was on “the walkway/parking lot leading to the entrance of the subject property” and “at or near [the] corner of 3939 S. Figueroa St.”  (FAC, ¶¶ 8-9.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

Conclusion

The Demurrer of Defendant County of Los Angeles is OVERRULED.

The Court ORDERS Defendant to file its Answer to the FAC within 21 days of notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.