Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV01785, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 22PSCV01785    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: O

HEARING DATE:                 Tuesday, February 14, 2023

RE:                                          JOSE ESTRADA vs CITY OF BALDWIN PARK (22PSCV01785)

______________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANT CITY OF BALDWIN'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

            Responding Party: Unopposed as of 2/6 [due 1/31 (9 court days before hearing)

Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANT CITY OF BALDWIN'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Background

This is a negligence case. Plaintiff Jose Estrada alleges the following against the City of Baldwin Park: Plaintiff was injured while riding his motorcycle because there was a large hole in the road.

On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit against the City for (1) Premises Liability and (2) General Negligence.[1]

On December 29, 2022, the City filed the instant Demurrer.

Discussion

The City demurs to the 2^nd cause of action for General Negligence on three grounds: (1) the cause of action fails to state a statutory basis for the claim (Cal. Gov. Code § 815; Cal. Civ. Proc.§ 430.10(e)); (2) it is duplicative of the first cause of action;[2] and (3) it is vague, ambiguous, and uncertain (Cal. Civ. Proc. §430.10(f)).

Claims Against the Government

First, Government Code § 815 provides that “[a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person” except as provided by statute. (Govt. Code, § 815(a); see Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 932.)  “[D]irect tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care, and not on the general tort provisions of Civil Code section 1714. Otherwise, the general rule of immunity for public entities would be largely eroded by the routine application of general tort principles.” (Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1183.)

In sum, it is well established law that public entities in California are not subject to direct liability for general negligence, unless predicated upon a statutory duty.

Here, however, Plaintiff has offered no bases for the statutory liability for his claim.

Therefore, the demurrer is sustained on this ground.

Uncertainty

Second, as for the arguments that the complaint is uncertain, the court agrees.

Here, the complaint—submitted on a Judicial Council form—merely conclusively states that Defendants were negligent in “the maintenance, construction, repair, design, fabrication, and care” of the roadway. 

Therefore, the demurrer is sustained on this ground.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court sustains the demurrer with leave to amend.