Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 24NNCV00031, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV00031, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

On March 5, 2024, plaintiff Dejour Brual (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges a dangerous condition of public property “at or near on I-210 near Angeles Crest Hwy, La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011” caused a vehicle in an adjacent lane to swerve in order to avoid an “uneven and/or broken and/or deteriorating and/or raised portion of the roadway and/or pothole.” (Compl., MC-025.) Plaintiff then performed an evasive maneuver in order to avoid colliding with this adjacent vehicle, causing him to “collide into the medial barrier.” (Ibid.)

On August 7, 2024, Defendant filed this demurrer on the grounds that the Complaint is uncertain and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

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.) “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) 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).) Where the complaint contains substantial factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty will be overruled or plaintiff will be given leave to amend. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

“[U]nder the Tort Claims Act all governmental tort liability is based on statute, the general rule that statutory causes of action must be pleaded with particularity is applicable. Thus, ‘to state a cause of action against a public entity, every fact material to the existence of its statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity.’” (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795.) Here, Plaintiff fails to plead his cause of action with particularity because, as Defendant points out, Plaintiff does not “specify which lane of traffic the dangerous condition existed in” or “which direction he was traveling on I-210 at the time of the accident.” (Demurrer, p. 3.) Plaintiff’s generalized allegations regarding the type of roadway defect are also insufficient. (See Compl., p. 7 [listing “uneven and/or broken and/or deteriorating and/or raised portion . . . and/or pothole].) While some information is necessarily in Defendant’s possession and cannot be pleaded with particularity, such as the issue of actual or constructive notice, information about the defect which allegedly caused Plaintiff’s injuries should be available to Plaintiff and must be pleaded.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.