Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV28405, Date: 2025-05-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV28405    Hearing Date: May 20, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     May 20, 2025             TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Nile-Adriel Capari Leabres, et al. v. Melissa Elleana Gage

CASE NO.:                 24STCV28405           

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Melissa Elleana Gage

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Nile-Adriel Capari Leabres and Maria-Riza Libres

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a motor vehicle negligence action that was filed on October 30, 2024.

Defendant demurs to the Complaint in its entirety.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendant is to serve and file an Answer to the Complaint within 20 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

            Defendant demurs to the Complaint in its entirety.

Legal Standard

A demurrer 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.) 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.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “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 p. 747.) The ultimate facts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403; see also Shields v. County of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 133 [stating, “[o]n demurrer, pleadings are read liberally and allegations contained therein are assumed to be true”].) “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.” (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who has filed the pleading subject to the demurrer and file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a).) However, an insufficient meet and confer process is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(4)

The Declaration of Silvia C. Schaffer in support of the Demurrer states that Counsel for Defendant sent a single email on January 31, 2025, followed by a letter on February 13, 2025, attempting to resolve this dispute. (Declaration of Silvia C. Schaffer ISO Dem. ¶ 4.) An email and a letter are not a sufficient effort to informally resolve this dispute, as the statute requires that the parties attempt to meet and confer in person or by telephone. At minimum, counsel for Defendant should have attempted to call Plaintiffs’ counsel and confer orally. While Defendant has not complied with her statutory meet-and-confer obligations, the Court will address the demurrer on the merits.

Request for Judicial Notice

            Defendant requests judicial notice of a document bearing the letterhead of Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, titled “Settlement and Release,” which is purportedly an agreement between the parties and Liberty Mutual for resolution of any claims arising from an accident on March 6, 2024. Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, this document is not a court record which is properly the subject of judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452(d). Moreover, Defendant’s citation to footnote 2 of Performance Plastering v. Richmond American Homes of California, Inc (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 659 at page 666 is wholly unpersuasive, as the Court of Appeal was taking judicial notice of settlement documents as the fundamental agreements upon which the claims for breach of contract in that case were grounded. This document, on the other hand, is a wholly extrinsic item of uncertain provenance and nonexistent authentication. Nor does it qualify as a fact or proposition that is not reasonably subject to dispute and is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.

            Defendant’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.

Issue and Claim Preclusion

            Defendant demurs to the Complaint in its entirety on the grounds that the entire action is barred by the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion. Defendant’s argument in this respect is grounded entirely in the putative “Settlement Agreement” of which the Court has refused to take judicial notice. For this reason alone, Defendant’s argument is unpersuasive. Moreover, even if the Court were willing to consider the document, Defendant has not demonstrated the existence of any prior litigation which advanced to a final judgment upon which the application of these doctrines would be premised. An out-of-court agreement brokered by an insurance company standing alone is not the same as litigation.

            Defendant has not demonstrated that the Complaint is barred by the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion.

Uncertainty

            Defendant also purports to demur to the Complaint on the grounds that it fails to plead ultimate facts and is therefore uncertain. However, Defendant’s statement of demurrer cites Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 subdivision (e), which pertains to the factual sufficiency of the pleadings, not subdivision (f), which pertains to uncertainty. Moreover, “[t]he objection of uncertainty does not go to the failure to allege sufficient facts.” (Brea v. McGlashan (1934) 3 Cal.App.2d 454, 459.) Given the uncertainty in Defendant’s statement of the grounds for the demurrer, the Court cannot find that Defendant has provided adequate notice of the basis for this challenge to the Complaint such that Plaintiffs could be expected to respond. The Court therefore does not find the demurrer sufficient in this respect.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendant is to serve and file an Answer to the Complaint within 20 days of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  May 20, 2025                         ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.