Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00700, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00700    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

           On September 21, 2022, plaintiff Maria Morales (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Complete Care Community Health Center (“Defendant”) from injuries that Plaintiff sustained on Defendant’s premises, when she fell out of a wheelchair.

          On November 14, 2022, Defendant file the instant Demurrer to the Complaint.  Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Demurrer on January 12, 2023.  Defendant filed a Reply on January 19, 2023.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring 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(a).)  

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).) 

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.)

III.     DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied.  (See Rosenberg Decl., ¶ 5.)

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s causes of action for premises liability and negligence on the grounds that they are duplicative of each other.

Plaintiff is entitled to plead alternate theories: “Superfluity does not vitiate.”  (CCP § 3537.)  Some cases have sustained a demurrer on the ground that a cause of action which merely duplicates another cause of action and adds nothing to the complaint by way of fact or theory (e.g., Award Metals v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1128, 1135).  However, the better view is that the objection that a cause of action is duplicative of another in the complaint “is not a ground on which a demurrer may be sustained.”  (Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 890. [“[I]t is a waste of time and judicial resources to entertain a motion challenging part of a pleading on the sole ground of repetitiveness.  This is the sort of defect that, if it justifies any judicial intervention at all, is ordinarily dealt with most economically at trial, or on a dispositive motion such as summary judgment.”] (Citation omitted.))

           In addition, a review of the two causes of action reveals that they are not duplicative.  Plaintiff’s premises liability cause of action is based on Defendant’s defective premises, and while Plaintiff’s general negligence cause of action includes allegations of the defective premises, it is based on Defendant’s, and its agents, negligent operation of the subject wheelchair and their negligent care of Plaintiff.

          Thus, Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED.

IV.     CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED.

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.