Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV20270, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20270    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

           On May 28, 2021, Rogelio Bonilla (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Marriot International, Inc.; Los Angeles Marriot Burbank Airport; Richard Sandoval; Residence Inn by Marriot Los Angeles Burbank/Downtown.  The complaint alleges seven causes of action: (1) battery; (2) negligence; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) fraudulent concealment; (5) private nuisance; (6) public nuisance; and (7) breach of contract. 

          On December 9, 2022, Defendants Marriot International, Inc. and Residence Inn by Marriot, LLC erroneously sued as “Residence Inn by Marriot Los Angeles Burbank/Downtown” (“Defendants”) filed a demurrer and motion to strike to Plaintiff’s complaint.  Defendants demur to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action.  Defendants move to strike the following: (1) paragraph 46 of the complaint in its entirety; (2) paragraph 63 of the complaint in its entirety; (3) paragraph 70 of the complaint in its entirety; (4) paragraph 84 of the complaint in its entirety; (5) paragraph 2 of the prayer for punitive damages; and (6) the phrase “including attorney’s fees” from paragraph 3 of the prayer for relief.

          On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed his oppositions to Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike.

          On January 4, 2023, Defendants filed their replies to Plaintiff’s oppositions. 

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face.  (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.)  “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.  [Citation.]”  (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].)  Allegations are to be liberally construed.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) 

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).)  The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)  The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)  An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (b).)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully.  (Ibid.)

Before filing a demurrer or motion to strike, the demurring or moving party shall meet and confer with the party who has filed the pleading and shall file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, subd. (a); 435.5, subd. (a).) 

III.     DISCUSSION

1.   Meet and Confer

The Court finds Defendants Marriot International, Inc. and Residence Inn by Marriot, LLC erroneously sued as “Residence Inn by Marriot Los Angeles Burbank/Downtown” have filed code-compliant meet and confer declarations.  (Declaration of Paul W. Burke.)

2.   Liability

Defendants Marriot International, Inc. and Residence Inn by Marriot, LLC contend that neither is liable to Plaintiff since neither is alleged to have owned, operated or managed the Los Angeles Marriot Burbank Hotel, which is the only location where Plaintiff alleges he saw and was bitten by bed bugs. 

In opposition, Plaintiff does not address this issue or discuss any authority suggesting that liability could be imposed upon Defendants.

Plaintiff alleges Marriot International, Inc. is the parent corporation of Residence Inn Long Beach Downtown.  (Complaint ¶ 4.)  The Los Angeles Marriot Burbank Airport, owns, operates, manages, and is doing business as Los Angeles Marriot Burbank Airport.  (Id. ¶ 5.)  The Residence Inn by Marriot Los Angeles Burbank/Downtown owns, operates, manages, and is doing business as the Residence Inn by Marriot Los Angeles Burbank/Downtown.  (Id. ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff alleges he checked into the Los Angeles Marriot Burbank Airport (“Marriot Burbank Airport”) on or about May 30, 2019.  (Id. ¶¶ 6 and 15.)  While sitting on the hotel bed after entering his room, Plaintiff felt a “biting sensation” on his back and, a few minutes later, he felt additional “biting sensations.”  (Id. ¶ 16.)  Plaintiff used the bathroom mirror to assess his back in which he found “two red bite marks on his back.”  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff then found a bedbug on his bed and trapped it with a glass cup.  (Ibid.)  Thereafter, Plaintiff packed up his belongings and reported the incident to the front desk personnel.  (Id. ¶ 17.)  Plaintiff indicated that he did not feel comfortable staying at the hotel.  (Id. ¶ 18.)  Representatives of Marriot Burbank Airport indicated that Plaintiff could stay free of charge at a second hotel, the Residence Inn by Marriot Los Angeles Burbank/Downtown (“Residence Inn Burbank/Downtown”).  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff checked out of Marriot Burbank Airport and checked in in at the Residence Inn Burbank/Downtown. (Id. ¶ 19.) 

On or about May 31, 2019, Plaintiff woke up and discovered that his injuries “worsened.”  (Id. ¶ 20.)  He then contacted the Los Angeles Health Department to report the incident.  (Id. ¶ 21.)  On or about the same date, he sought medical care and treatment.  (Id. ¶ 22.)  He was diagnosed with bedbug bites and prescribed medication.  (Ibid.) 

Plaintiff checked out of the Residence Inn Burbank/Downtown.  (Id. ¶ 23.)  Plaintiff returned to Marriot Burbank Airport to express that he sought medical treatment and his concerns about his injuries.  (Ibid.)  Representative of Marriot Burbank Airport apologized to Plaintiff but did not offer to pay for his medical expenses.  (Ibid.)  However, Marriot Burbank Airport refunded Plaintiff’s hotel bill.

Based on the foregoing allegations, the Court finds that Plaintiff stayed at two different hotels on or about May 30, 2019.  Plaintiff first stayed at Marriot Burbank Airport and then at the Residence Inn Burbank/Downtown.  Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations establish that he was bitten by bed bugs only at Marriot Burbank Airport, the first hotel he stayed at.  Plaintiff fails to make allegations concerning the liability of Defendants Marriot International, Inc. and Residence Inn by Marriot, LLC.  Plaintiff alleges that Marriot International, Inc. is the parent corporation of Residence Inn Long Beach Downtown and that the Residence Inn Burbank/Downtown owns, operates, manages, and is doing business as the Residence Inn Burbank/Downtown.  Neither Defendant is alleged in the complaint to have owned, managed or operated the Marriot Burbank Hotel.  Plaintiff also fails to address this in opposition.  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully.  While Plaintiff requests leave to amend, he fails to show the Court how the complaint can be amended successfully.  

Accordingly, the Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

3.   Motion to Strike

          Defendants move to strike the following: (1) paragraph 46 of the complaint in its entirety; (2) paragraph 63 of the complaint in its entirety; (3) paragraph 70 of the complaint in its entirety; (4) paragraph 84 of the complaint in its entirety; (5) paragraph 2 of the prayer for punitive damages; and (6) the phrase “including attorney’s fees” from paragraph 3 of the prayer for relief.  Defendants’ motion is based on the ground that Plaintiff has not pled facts sufficient to support his claims for punitive damages and/or attorney’s fees as prayed in his complaint.

          Considering the ruling on demurrer, the motion to strike is moot.

IV.     CONCLUSION

The demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

The motion to strike is DENIED as MOOT.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.