Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV31889, Date: 2024-10-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV31889    Hearing Date: October 29, 2024    Dept: 29

Yanez v. Yoon
23STCV31889
Demurrer filed by Defendant Yung Ja Yoon

Tentative

The Demurrer is overruled.

Background

On December 29, 2023, Gisel Yanez, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Rosa Maricela Ayala Landaverde (“Plaintiff”), filed a complaint against Yung Ja Yoon (“Yoon”), Luis Manuel Lopez, Rinconcito Oaxaqueno Market, Manuel Lopez dba Rinconcito Oaxaqueno Market, and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for premises liability and negligence arising out of an alleged scooter fall occurring on October 17, 2020, near a store on Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles.

On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting the same causes of action against the same defendants.

On September 6, 2024, Defendants Luis Manuel Lopez and Rincocito Oaxaqueno Market, Inc. filed an answer.

On September 17, 2024, Defendant Yoon filed this demurrer.

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 provides:

“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:

(a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.

(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue.

(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.

(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.

(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.

(g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.

(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.”

A general demurrer for sufficiency under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e), tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

“We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.”  (Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California (2016) 1 Cal.5th 994, 1010; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; accord Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919, 924; Marina Pacific Hotel and Suites v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 96, 104.)  All reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the pleading.  (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081; Marina Pacific Hotel and Suites, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 104.)  Even “improbable” facts alleged in the pleading must be accepted as true.  (Marina Pacific Hotel and Suites, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at pp. 104-105.)

Courts must “liberally construe the pleading” and “give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in context.”  (Id. at p. 105.)

A demurrer can be sustained only when it disposes of an entire cause of action. (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119; Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redev. Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1046.)

Leave to amend should be granted when “there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.”  (Centinela Freeman, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 1010; Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318; Shaeffer v. Califia Farms (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1125, 1145.)

Meet and Confer Requirement

A party filing a demurrer must file and serve a declaration stating either that the parties met and conferred or that the plaintiff failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the demurring party.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)  That requirement is satisfied here.  (Colorado Decl., ¶ 2.)

Request for Judicial Notice

Yoon requests that the Court take judicial notice of Statement of Information filed by Rinconcito Oaxaqueno Market, Inc. with the California Secretary of State on February 1, 2024. The Court GRANTS Yoon’s request under Evidence Code section 452.

The Court, however, may take judicial notice only as to “the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents”; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.)

Discussion

Yoon demurs to Plaintiff’s FAC, contending that Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim against Yoon. Yoon argues that, according to the FAC, the accident site was on the sidewalk adjacent to the Rinconcito Oaxaqueno Market (“Market”), but Plaintiff does not allege that Yoon owns the Market or the sidewalk on which the accident occurred.  (Mem. at pp. 9-11.)

In the FAC, however, Plaintiff alleges (among other things) that each defendant, including Yoon, exercised control over the sidewalk on which the accident occurred.  (FAC, ¶¶ 17, 19, 22-29, 31.)  The FAC further alleges that each defendant, including Yoon, caused or contributed to the creation of the dangerous condition that led to Plaintiff’s accident.  (Id., ¶¶ 21-29, 32.)

On demurer, the Court must accept these allegations as true.  Taking these facts as true, Plaintiff has stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Yoon.  (See Lopez v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 244, 255-256 [stating general rule that a person who exercises control over a public sidewalk may be held liable for a dangerous condition on the sidewalk].)

Accordingly, the demurrer is overruled.

Conclusion

The Court OVERRULES Defendant Yung Ja Yoon’s demurrer.

Moving Party is to give notice.