Case Number: BC506358 Hearing Date: May 22, 2014 Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

STACY STERBCOW,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

CARL GABLER, et al.,
Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC506358

[TENTATIVE] ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #15
May 22, 2014

Defendant, Janelle Tubbs’s Demurrer is Sustained With Leave to Amend as to the First Cause of Action (General Negligence) and Without Leave to Amend as to the Second Cause of Action (Premises Liability). Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint within ten days. Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading within the statutory time thereafter.

Plaintiff, Stacy Sterbcow filed this action against Defendants, Carl Gabler, Jenelle Tubbs, and Robert Tubbs for damages arising out of a dog bite. The complaint includes causes of action for general negligence and premises liability.

Defendant, Jenelle Tubbs demurs to the cause of action for general negligence on the grounds that the cause of action fails to specify Tubbs’s relationship with the subject dog, and also fails to specify what duty Tubbs had to Plaintiff and how that duty was breached. Plaintiff’s negligence cause of action is premised on the following allegations:
The defendants owned/lived on the property which was used both for living and contained a garage which was rented for storage. The plaintiff was a tenant at the time of the incident. The Defendants owned/allowed a dog to reside on the property and to have access to common areas of the property used by the tenants. Prior to the date of the incident, the defendants had knowledge of the dog’s aggression and did nothing to create a safe environment for the plaintiff to access property. Due to the negligence of the defendants, the dog attacked the plaintiff causing injury for which the plaintiff has suffered harm.

The Court agrees that more details are necessary. There are three named defendants. Did each of the defendants own the subject property? Did they own the subject dog? How did they know that the dog was aggressive? What should they have done to keep the dog from being aggressive? How did the dog attack the plaintiff? The complaint is devoid of any details showing why each defendant was responsible for the subject dog, and what each defendant did that breached a duty to Plaintiff. The demurrer is therefore sustained with leave to amend.

Defendant also demurs to the second cause of action for premises liability. Plaintiff concedes that the cause of action for premises liability is not properly stated against Moving Defendant and cannot be cured at this time. The demurrer to the second cause of action is therefore sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff seeks an order that she can amend her complaint if and when she discovers facts to support this cause of action against Moving Defendant. Plaintiff is free to pursue a motion for leave to amend if and when doing so is procedurally and substantively appropriate.

Dated this 22nd day of May, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court