Case Number: 18STCV05297 Hearing Date: June 18, 2019 Dept: 4A

Demurrer without a Motion to Strike

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

On November 16, 2018, plaintiff Myra Young-Demus (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant 21st Century Insurance (“Defendant 21st Century”) alleging motor vehicle negligence arising from a T-bone collision that occurred on January 15, 2018.

On November 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant 21st Century and Defendant Doris Lyles Chapple.

Defendant 21st Century filed the instant demurrer to the FAC on May 3, 2019, contending that Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action against Defendant 21st, as her only claims are against Doris Lyles Chapple, who was the other driver in the January 15, 2018 accident.

Trial is set for May 15, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant asks this Court to sustain its demurrer: (1) to Plaintiff’s FAC in its entirety on the ground that the FAC is uncertain and (2) to Plaintiff’s cause of action for motor vehicle negligence as the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute such a cause of action and this cause of action uncertain.

LEGAL STANDARD

Demurrer

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. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) 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. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “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, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 747.)

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.¿ (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.41.)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

The Court finds that Defendant has filed a sufficient meet and confer declaration. (Dean Decl., ¶¶ 5-8.)

Demurrer

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged any cause of action against Defendant. While Plaintiff named Defendant in the original Complaint, the FAC only names Chapple as a Defendant and only alleges facts pertaining to Chapple. Defendant provided a Request for Dismissal to Plaintiff to dismiss it, but Plaintiff did not respond. Plaintiff has not opposed this demurrer.

Based on the FAC, it appears Plaintiff is only pursuing her claim against Chapple.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. Defendant 21st Century is ordered to give notice.