Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV27209, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27209    Hearing Date: February 15, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Theresa Chang dba Treasure Connection; Forty-Seventh & Fifth, Inc.; Paul King Por Wong and Leona Wai Fong Lam Wong dba Lams Jade Center, Inc.; Ming Chang dba Bonita Pearl, Inc.; Shahram Lavian and Sioun Lavian dba S&N Diamond; Sarkis Kegeyan dba Luvell, Inc.; Fariborz Frank Petri dba Petri Gems, Inc.; Amy Kit Tsing Leung dba Hawaiian Design Jewelry Company; Shung Man Simon Lam and Woon Mai Lam Quek dba El Dorado Jewelry, Inc.; Victor Wu and Anita Wu dba Pan Lovely Jewelry Company; Birol Arat dba Arat Jewelry; Tony Lee dba Lees International Jewelry, Inc.; Tan Lay Eng and Lee Cheng Tek dba Supreme Collection Corporation; and Rebecca Yum dba Denver Trading Company Kimmimoto (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Pilot Travel Centers LLC (erroneously sued as Pilot Corporation dba Pilot Flying J Travel Center) (“Pilot”) and others.

On November 22, 2022, the Court sustained Pilot’s demurrer to the Complaint with leave to amend.

On December 27, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants.  On February 1, 2023, Pilot filed a demurrer to the FAC.  On September 7, 2023, the Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend.

On October 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and on December 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (“TAC”).

On January 25, 2024, Pilot filed another demurrer to the TAC’s sixth cause of action for premises liability, the only claim brought against it.

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, accepting the alleged facts as true.  (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.)

The TAC alleges that Plaintiffs (who are jewelry manufacturers and sellers) contracted with Brink’s to ship their jewelry between gem and jewelry shows.  (TAC ¶¶ 8-9.)  The two drivers (who are also armed guards) of the Brink’s truck stopped at Pilot’s truck stop.  (TAC ¶ 16.)  Driver 1 went into the store for food, leaving Driver 2 asleep in the truck.  (TAC ¶¶ 16, 38.)  After twenty-seven minutes inside, Driver 1 discovered that a burglary had occurred, and millions of dollars of jewelry and gemstones were missing.  (TAC ¶¶ 16-18; see TAC ¶ 69.)

California law requires landowners to maintain land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition.  (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674 (Ann M.).)  The liability of landowners for injuries to people on their property is governed by general negligence principles.  (Pineda v. Ennabe (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1407 (Pineda).)    A cause of action for negligence requires (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care, (2) breach of that duty, (3) causation, and (4) damage to the plaintiff.  (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)  The existence of a legal duty is a question for the court to determine, and “foreseeability is a ‘crucial factor’ in determining the existence and scope of a legal duty.”  (Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, 237, citing Ann M., supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 674, 676 (Delgado).)

Like with its prior demurrers, Pilot argues that it is not liable for third parties’ unforeseeable criminal conduct.  (Demurrer at pp. 2-5.)   “[A] high degree of foreseeability is required in order to find that the scope of a landlord’s duty of care includes the hiring of security guards. . . . [T]he requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner’s premises.  To hold otherwise would be to impose an unfair burden upon landlords and, in effect, would force landlords to become the insurers of public safety, contrary to well established policy in this state.”  (Ann M., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 679, footnote omitted.)  “Heightened foreseeability is satisfied by a showing of prior similar criminal incidents (or other indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults in that location) and does not require a showing of prior nearly identical criminal incidents.  (Delgado, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 245.)

Like the FAC, the TAC alleges that “[t]he immediate area of the Flying J Truck Stop has a known history of property thefts, and there have been prior incidents of thefts of personal property, including from vehicles.  In just the four months immediately preceding the theft from this Brinks vehicle, there were at least four known thefts of property in the area and four known instances of physical assault.”  (TAC ¶ 71.)  Plaintiffs plead no other facts regarding these vague thefts and assaults, and crime “in the area” does not allege “prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner’s premises.”  (Ann M., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 679.)

Plaintiffs also allege that “another large truck stop in the same geographical area, Lebec, California, that also has hundreds of parking spots, employs security guard patrols to discourage crime at their locations, as well as such other security measures as adequate lighting.”  (TAC ¶ 71.)  This relates to a non-party location and does not allege Pilot’s knowledge of those incidents at the other location.

Plaintiffs’ new allegations include the theft of Pilot’s golf cart in 2019; a bomb threat in April 2020; thefts of an iPod, a necklace, and cash kept in one woman’s center console, and credit card information at the promises; a stolen truck; two thefts of catalytic converters; theft of money from a vehicle; and theft of debit card information from at least 2016 to July 2023.  (TAC ¶¶ 72-73.)  These are not prior similar criminal incidents.  Even if they were, the only thefts for which Plaintiffs allege facts to show Pilot’s knowledge is the theft of its own golf cart and credit card information.  (TAC ¶¶ 72-73.)  According to Plaintiffs, many of these thefts “have been reported on social media, thus putting the Flying J Truck Stop on notice.”  (TAC ¶ 73.)  But this does not allege any facts showing Pilot’s actual notice for foreseeability.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED.  Plaintiffs have had several prior opportunities to amend, and they have failed to cure the deficiencies.  Accordingly, no further leave to amend is granted.

The Court orders Defendant Pilot Travel Centers LLC DISMISSED from this action.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 15th day of February 2024