Judge Timothy B. Taylor, Case 37-2023-00009464-CU-PO-CTL 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2023-00009464-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 15, 2024

02/16/2024 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00009464-CU-PO-CTL ROXAS VS POSITIVE INVESTMENT APARTMENTS INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 10/17/2023

Defendant Positive Investment Apartments, Inc.'s demurrer to the complaint is OVERRULED.

Generally speaking, all persons have a duty to take reasonable care in their activities to avoid causing injury. Rowland v. Christian (1969) 69 Cal.2d 108, 111-12. However, 'one owes no duty to control the conduct of another, nor to warn those endangered by such conduct.' Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 203. An exception to the no-duty-to-protect rule is the 'special relationship' doctrine. Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, 215. A special relationship between the defendant and the victim is one that gives the victim a right to expect protection from the defendant, while a special relationship between the defendant and the dangerous third party is one that entails an ability to control the third party's conduct. Id. at 216.

Whether to recognize a duty to protect is governed by a two-step inquiry: 'First, the court must determine whether there exists a special relationship between the parties or some other set of circumstances giving rise to an affirmative duty to protect.' Brown, 11 Cal.5th at 209. 'Second, if so, the court must consult the factors described in Rowland to determine whether relevant policy considerations counsel limiting that duty.' Id. The Rowland factors include 'the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.' Rowland, 69 Cal.2d at 113.

In this case, plaintiffs allege that defendant is 'the owner and management company of the property where plaintiffs are tenants.' (Complaint at ¶ 6.) These facts are sufficient to show that the parties were in a special relationship. See Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 620. 'Where there is a special relationship between the parties that gives the victim a right to expect protection from the defendant, the law imposes an affirmative duty to protect.' Hassaine v. Club Demonstration Services, Inc. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 843, 852.

Having determined that plaintiffs have adequately pled a duty to protect, the court turns to the second step in the Brown analysis. The court, however, is unable to conclude on this limited factual record that the Rowland factors justify limiting this duty as a matter of law. Of course, defendant may revisit this issue (the alleged lack of duty) by way of a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c or a nonsuit motion. Only then will the court have before it the full development of a record addressing the applicable Rowland factors.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3035886 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ROXAS VS POSITIVE INVESTMENT APARTMENTS INC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00009464-CU-PO-CTL Defendant must file and serve an answer to the complaint by February 26, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3035886