Case Number: EC061426    Hearing Date: July 18, 2014    Dept: A

Baccouche v City of Los Angeles

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Calendar: 8
Case No: EC061426
Date: 7/18/14

MP: Cross-Defendant, Shelly Albert
RP: Cross-Complainant, City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power

RELIEF REQUESTED:
Motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the Cross-Complaint.

ALLEGATIONS IN CROSS-COMPLAINT:
The City of Los Angeles has a prescriptive easement on the property of the Cross-Defendant, Henri Baccouche, as the City used the easement for its power line for five years preceding this action. The City seeks equitable indemnity from Shelly Albert because she is liable for Henri Baccouche’s claims in his Complaint.

CAUSES OF ACTION IN CROSS-COMPLAINT:
1) Quiet Title – Prescriptive Easement
2) Quiet Title – Equitable Easement
3) Quiet Title – Equitable Indemnity

DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant, City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power, engaged in a trespass on his property when it placed a utility pole and lines across his property. The Plaintiff seeks damages because the power lines are a “visual blight”.
The Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint for quiet title and indemnity. The Defendant seeks to quiet title in its easement for the electric service line. In addition, the Defendant seeks indemnity from Shelly Albert on the ground that she requested the City of Los Angeles to design and construct the electric service line to serve her property. Trial is set for March 16, 2015.

This hearing concerns the Cross-Defendant’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings with regards to third cause of action for indemnity in the Cross-Complainant filed by the City of Los Angeles. The Cross-Defendant argues that there are no allegations supporting the claim of indemnity.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the purpose and effect of a general demurrer and is filed after the time to file a demurrer has expired. Smiley v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A. (1995) 11 Cal. 4th 138, 145-146. Accordingly, just as on a demurrer, the Court examines the allegations in order to determine whether they contain the essential facts necessary to plead a valid cause of action and accepts as true all material facts alleged therein. Id.
CCP section 438(c)(B) provides that the grounds for a judgment on the pleadings in favor of a defendant are the following:

1) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint.
2) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.

Further, CCP section 438(d) provides that the grounds for the judgment on the pleading must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.

The Cross-Defendant argues that the pleadings lack sufficient facts to demonstrate that she is liable for the Plaintiff’s damages. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks damages for trespass on the ground that the City of Los Angeles placed power lines and a power pole on his property without his permission.
A claim for indemnity is based on law holding that when multiple tortfeasors are responsible for an indivisible injury suffered by the plaintiff, each tortfeasor is jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for those damages and thus may be held individually liable to the injured plaintiff for the entirety of such damages. American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal. 3d 578, 582, 586-587, 590. This joint and several liability doctrine ensures that the injured party receives adequate compensation for its injuries, even if one or more of the responsible parties do not have the financial resources to pay for their share of the liability. Id. at 588, 590. Fairness dictates that the wronged party should not be deprived of his or her right to redress, but that the wrongdoers should be left to work out between themselves any apportionment. Id. at 590.
The right to indemnity flows from payment of a joint legal obligation on another’s behalf. Western Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 100, 114. The elements of a cause of action for indemnity are the following:

1) a showing of fault on the part of the indemnitor;
2) resulting damages to the indemnitee for which the indemnitor is contractually or equitably responsible.
Gouvis Engineering v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 642, 646.

Equitable indemnity principles govern the allocation of loss or damages among multiple tortfeasors whose liability for the underlying injury is joint and several. GEM Developers v. Hallcraft Homes of San Diego, Inc. (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 419, 426. Under the principles of equity, liability for damage will be borne by each joint tortfeasor in direct proportion to his or her respective fault. American Motorcycle, 20 Cal. 3d at 583, 598.
A review of the Cross-Complaint reveals that there are no allegations identifying the fault on the part of the Cross-Defendant. The Plaintiff claims that the City of Los Angeles engaged in a trespass by placing power lines and a power pole on his property. The indemnity claim is based on allegations in paragraph 5 that in July of 2006, Shelly Albert requested that the City of Los Angeles design and construct an electric service line to her property for a new house. The City alleges that it prepared the plans in consultation with Shelly Albert and that Shelly Albert approved and authorized the City to construct the electric service line to her property.
These allegations, which are assumed true for the purposes of the pending motion, indicate that Shelly Albert is alleged to be a co-tortfeasor by failing to inform the City that the proposed service line that was intended for the benefit of her property would trespass on the Plaintiff’s property. The allegations that Shelli Albert approved and authorized the plan for the service line is sufficient to plead a showing of fault on the part of Shelly Albert.
Therefore, the Court will deny the motion for a judgment on the pleadings.

RULING:
Deny motion for judgment on the pleadings.