Tentative Ruling

Judge Pauline Maxwell
Department 6 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107

CIVIL LAW & MOTION
Carlos Sanchez vs Toby Landon Claude
Case No: 19CV03675
Hearing Date: Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Demurrer

Tentative Ruling: The court sustains defendant EAN Holdings, Inc.’s demurrer to plaintiffs Carlos Sanchez and Margarita Sanchez’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint on or before March 2, 2020.

Complaint: This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on August 20, 2017. Plaintiffs Carlos Sanchez and Margarita Sanchez allege that defendant Toby Landon Claude was driving a vehicle owned and entrusted by defendant EAN Holdings, Inc., and that he operated the vehicle in the course of his employment by defendant Hot Line Construction, Inc.

Demurrer: Defendant EAN demurs to the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs only make conclusory allegations without facts supporting the conclusory allegations. EAN also contends the action is barred by the federal Graves Amendment under which a rental car company and its affiliates are only liable for damages caused as a result of an independent act of negligence of that company.

1. Standards for Demurrer: The court’s only task in ruling on a demurrer is to determine whether the complaint states a cause of action. Moore v. Regents of University of California, 51 Cal.3d 120, 125 (1990). The court treats “the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law”; considers “matters which may be judicially noticed”; and gives “the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” Evans v. City of Berkeley, 38 Cal.4th 1, 6 (2006) [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]. The court also considers the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the properly pleaded material facts. Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal.4th 1075, 1083 (2005). “[A]ny allegations that are contrary to the law or to a fact of which judicial notice may be taken will be treated as a nullity.” C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 169 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1102 (2009).

2. Request for Judicial Notice and Submission of Evidence: EAN requests that the court take judicial notice of Statements of Information filed with the California Secretary of State for defendant EAN and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC, as evidence that the two entities are in the car rental business and that they are affiliates.

Evid. Code § 452(c) permits the court to take judicial notice of “Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States.” “‘Official acts include records, reports and orders of administrative agencies.’” Ordlock v. Franchise Tax Bd., 38 Cal.4th 897, 912 (2006) [citation omitted]. Documents filed with administrative agencies are not official acts of the agency. Even if they were, the court could not take judicial notice of facts asserted in the documents. “While we may take judicial notice of court records and official acts of state agencies (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (c), (d)), the truth of matters asserted in such documents is not subject to judicial notice (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564–1565 [8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 552]).” Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482 (2010).

Also, the documents are from 2019, not 2017 when the alleged collision occurred.

EAN offers subdivisions (g) and (h) of Evid. Code § 452 as grounds for taking judicial notice of the nature and affiliation of the two defendants. These subdivisions authorize judicial notice of facts and propositions that are of common knowledge and “are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” EAN’s business and affiliations are not common knowledge and EAN has not demonstrated that its business and affiliations are matters not reasonably subject to dispute and capable of determination from reliable sources.

EAN says the court must take judicial notice of facts about EAN under Evid. Code § 451(f), which requires judicial notice of: “Facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute.” EAN’s business and affiliations are not propositions of generalized knowledge that are universally known.

The court denies the request for judicial notice of the statements of information.

EAN says other courts recognize that EAN is affiliated with Enterprise. One court stated that Enterprise Rent-A-Car is a trade name of EAN. Pate v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, 2013 WL 4736863, at *1 (M.D. La. Sept. 3, 2013). But that is not a holding of the case nor is there any indication of how the court arrived at that conclusion. Also, the case says nothing about Enterprise Rent-a-Car of Los Angles, LLC. The decision in Jian Wu v. Ean Holdings, LLC, 2014 WL 117338 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2014), refers to EAN in the context of a wholly different company, not Enterprise. Another court referred to EAN as “the successor in interest to Enterprise Leasing Company of New Orleans and Enterprise Rent–A–Car.” Franklin v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car, 104 So.3d 720, 721 (La. Ct. App. 2012). (EAN refers to this case as Lukaszeivicz v. Enterptise Rent-A-Car, but the citation brings up Franklin v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car.) Again, there is no indication of the source of that information or what entity “Enterprise Rent-A-Car” is. Also, none of these three cases was decided based on sufficiency of the pleading. Two involved motions for summary judgment where the court took evidence and one was a remand to state court based on the jurisdictional amount. EAN asks the court to take judicial notice of a decision of the Los Angeles Superior Court—Hardesty v Ean Holdings, LLC, No. BC496125, 2014 WL 5307598, at *1 (Cal.Super. Oct. 09, 2014). That is another case decided on a motion for summary judgment where the court took evidence. These cases do not instruct the court on the pleadings and matters before this court.

3. Negligence and Motor Vehicle Causes of Action: In any action based on negligence, “the elements of duty, breach of duty, causation and damages must be pleaded and proven.” Christensen v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 868, 882 (1991). “Negligence may be generally pleaded, but there are limits to the generality with which the plaintiff is allowed to state a cause of action. The complaint must indicate the acts or omissions which the plaintiff claims were negligently performed.” Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., 19 Cal.4th 26, 60 (1998). “[T]o withstand a demurrer, a complaint must allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts….” Logan v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., 136 Cal.App.3d 116, 126 (1982).

Plaintiffs use a Judicial Council form complaint. It alleges that EAN owned the vehicle and entrusted it. There is no indication of what acts or omissions EAN negligently performed. “In some cases, merely checking a box on a Judicial Council form complaint will be sufficient. In other cases, such as this one, where specific allegations need be alleged, the form complaint is like a partially completed painting. It is up to the pleader to add the details that complete the picture. The form complaint here, standing alone, is no more immune to demurrer than any other complaint that fails to meet essential pleading requirements to state a cause of action.” People ex rel. Dep’t of Transportation v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1486 (1992).

The court will sustain the demurrer with leave to amend.

4. Graves Amendment: EAN asserts another ground for demurrer, the federal Graves Amendment. Enacted in 2005, 49 U.S.C. § 30106(a) provides:

An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if–

(1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and

(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner).

Because the pleadings do not reveal whether the statute limiting suits against vehicle leasing companies applies to EAN, the court will not sustain the demurrer on this ground. (The court offers no opinion regarding any exceptions to the statute.)

5. Order: The court sustains defendant EAN Holdings, Inc.’s demurrer to plaintiffs Carlos Sanchez and Margarita Sanchez’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint on or before March 2, 2020.