Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22STCV18593, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18593    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

           On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff Craig Randell (“Craig Randell” or “Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint (the “Randell Case”) against Defendants Patricia A. Jacobs, Brodie Stephenson (“Stephenson”), a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Amber Stephenson, and Does 1 through 10 (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence arising out a motor vehicle collision that occurred on June 10, 2020. Craig Randell’s complaint states that he is the father of Matthew Randell (the “Decedent”), who was killed in the automobile accident in which Defendant Patricia Jacobs was driving the other car. The role of Stephenson is not described.  Stephenson, though not identified as such, appears to have been named as a nominal defendant.

Defendant Stephenson, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Amber Stephenson files a demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.  He asserts that because Plaintiff Craig Randell was named as a defendant in the Stephenson Case, defined below, he is now barred from alleging a separate complaint.

Stephenson is the Plaintiff in Brodie Stephenson, a Minor, by Amber Stephenson, as Guardian vs. Patricia A. Jacobs, et al., 22STCV01315, filed January 11, 2022, currently also before this Court (the “Stephenson Case”).  A notice of related case was filed in the Randell Case but not in the Stephenson Case, which would be the low-numbered case.  Accordingly, the Court has taken no action on the notice of related case. 

Craig Randell is a defendant in the Stephenson Case (sued as Craig Randall but mid-complaint renamed Randell). He appears to be the grandfather of Stephenson and was named in the Stephenson Case as a nominal defendant.  In his opposition to the demurrer, Plaintiff asserts that as between Plaintiff and Defendant Stephenson the issue is who is a rightful heir of Decedent. 

Brodie Stephenson is alleged to be the heir of Matthew Randell although Mr. Randell’s name is not on the birth certificate. The primary dispute in this case is who are the proper heirs, and what are those heirs entitled to. Brodie Stephenson filed his action first, and Mr. Randell subsequently filed his Complaint, as well as a notice of related case.

(Opposition 3:5-9.)

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).)  However, a demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) 

In construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations.  (Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769.)  Where the facts pled in the complaint are inconsistent with facts which are incorporated by reference from exhibits attached to the complaint, the facts in the incorporated exhibits control.  Further, irrespective of the name or label given to a cause of action by the plaintiff, a general demurrer must be overruled if the facts as pled in the body of the complaint state some valid claim for relief.  Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).) 

III.     DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer Requirement

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).)  

On July 21, 2022, Defendant sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter, however, Plaintiff failed to respond to the letter. (Velto Decl. ¶ 2-5.)

Demurrer

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds that a nominal defendant cannot filed a new complaint.

Code of Civil Procedure section 382, merely states that, “If the consent of any one who should have been joined as plaintiff cannot be obtained, he may be made a defendant, the reason thereof being stated in the complaint; and when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 382.)  

Defendant argues that there is a pending case regarding the incident, namely, the Stephenson Case, filed January 11, 2022, currently before this Court. Plaintiff was named a nominal defendant in the Stephenson Case, and, according to Defendant Stephenson, Plaintiff cannot now bring for a separate suit for the same issues. Defendant argues that there is no legal basis for this suit against Defendant Stephenson.

In opposition, Plaintiff Randell argues that he is not required to have his rights adjudicated in the Stephenson Case. Plaintiff cites Estate of Kuebler v. Superior Court (1978) 81 Cal. App.3d 500, 504, holding that a claim was not barred by settlement of another party’s action or could be cured by consolidating actions. Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 7, 2022, and on June 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed and served a notice of related case pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300. Plaintiff argues that there nothing improper about filing a lawsuit and relating it to the case case filed by Brodie Stephenson.

Plaintiff admits his opposition was untimely filed and advances personal reasons by way of excuse.  The untimeliness was de minimis and the Court accepts the explanation.

Plaintiff Craig Randell is a named nominal defendant in the Stephenson Case and Stephenson is a nominal defendant in the Randell Case.  For personal injury and wrongful death actions, a known heir that does not wish to participate in the lawsuit is named as a nominal defendant. (Watkins v. Nutting (1941) 17 Cal.2d 490; Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 556); Romero v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 211, 216); and Smith v. Premier Alliance Ins. Co. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 691, 697.))  As Craig Randell is named a nominal defendant in Case No. 22STCV01315, there is no legal basis for this instant suit, Case No. 22STCV18593, against Defendant Brodie Stephenson pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 382 as, under the one action rule applicable to wrongful death suits, Craig Randell will be bound by the resulting adjudication in the Stephenson Case.

IV.     CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the demurrer to the sole cause of action for wrongful death resulting from motor vehicle negligence is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

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.