Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 24STCV04380, Date: 2024-12-18 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

1. Demurrer to the Complaint for failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.[1]

On February 22, 2024, Plaintiffs Jose Jesus Torres and Rosa O. Astoraga (Plaintiffs) filed a personal injury Complaint against Defendants City of Montebello and Montebello Policy Department (Defendants). According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs were injured on February 25, 2023 in a motor vehicle accident with vehicles owned and operated by Defendants.

On August 20, 2024, Defendant City of Montebello (City) filed the instant demurrer. On December 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On December 10, 2024, Defendant filed a reply.

Prior to filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to satisfy their meet and confer obligations pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. (CCP) §430.41 and demonstrate that they so satisfied their meet and confer obligation by submitting a declaration pursuant to CCP §430.41(a)(2) & (3). Here, the parties did not meet and confer because Plaintiff’s counsel never returned phone calls, emails, or letters of Defendant’s counsel spanning several weeks. (Murray Decl. ¶¶ 6-16.) Still, failure to meet and confer is not a sufficient ground to overrule or sustain a demurrer. (CCP § 430.41(a)(4).)¿

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.¿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. …. 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¿147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)¿

Defendant’s argument hinges on pleadings filed in the matter Infinity Insurance Company v. City of Montebello, et al. LASC Case No. 24STLC00248. There is no Notice of Related Case filed in this case pertaining to Case No. 24STLC00248.

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs are bound by prior admissions made in Infinity Insurance Company v. City of Montebello, et al. LASC Case No. 24STLC00248. However, Plaintiffs here were not the plaintiffs in that action. Whether they are bound to whatever the plaintiff in that case did is not properly resolved on demurrer.

Defendant contends the Police Department does not exist as a separate entity from Defendant and is therefore improperly named. Plaintiff did not oppose this point.

Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer as to Defendant Montebello Police Department in full.

Defendant contends Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails because it is barred by Gov. Code § 815, 820.4, and Vehicle Code § 17004.[2] Plaintiff did not oppose this point.

Vehicle Code § 17001 states: “A public entity is liable for death or injury to person or property proximately caused by a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the operation of any motor vehicle by an employee of the public entity acting within the scope of his employment.”

Vehicle Code § 17004 states: “A public employee is not liable for civil damages on account of personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the operation, in the line of duty, of an authorized emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency call or when in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm or other emergency call.”

As a threshold matter, Defendant refers multiple times to an “Officer Arreola” but such person is not a party to the instant action. Therefore, the court disregards those arguments.

Defendants remaining immunity arguments fail at this stage because the Complaint does not state that the accident occurred “resulting from the operation, in the line of duty, of an authorized emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency call or when in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law” as required by Vehicle Code § 17004.[3] As discussed above, Defendant’s reliance on a separate action by a separate party purportedly concerning these Plaintiffs is inappropriate at the demurrer stage.

Defendant contends there are insufficient facts alleged to support Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs argue the form Complaint is sufficient.

“The elements of a cause of action for negligence are well established.¿ They are (a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; and (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.”¿ (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917; CACI No. 400.) (Quotations omitted.)¿¿ The elements are the same for a Motor Vehicle cause of action.¿ (See Judicial Council Form, Cause of Action-Motor Vehicle.)¿

Although the form Complaint alleges the elements of a Motor Vehicle claim, (i.e, “the acts of defendants were negligent; the acts were the legal (proximate) cause of injuries and damages to plaintiff”), the Complaint is devoid of allegations making clear which of Defendant’s actions were negligent. For instance, the Complaint does not apprise Defendant whether the basis for the action is a collision involving motor vehicles, a pedestrian, or a cyclist.

[1] Defendant’s demurrer does not separately contain the demurrer pursuant to CRC, rule 3.1320(a). However, the notice substantially complies with this requirement because it lists each grounds Defendant seeks to demurrer to the Complaint.

[2] Gov. Code § 815 does not help Defendant because it allows liability “otherwise provided by statute.”

[3] Defendant’s reliance on Gov. Code § 820.4 is similarly misplaced at this time because there are no allegations that any defendant was “execut[ing] or enforce[ing] any law.”