TENTATIVE RULINGS — http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/tentativeruling/

Case Number: 18STCV06432 Hearing Date: March 12, 2020 Dept: A

# 8. Carmen Taylor-Jones, et al. v. Jasmin Pimentel, et al.

Case No.: 18STCV06432

Matter on calendar for: Demurrer to Complaint

Tentative ruling:

Background

This is a personal injury action arising from an automobile collision at the intersection of Willowbrook Avenue and Alondra Boulevard. Plaintiffs Carmen Taylor-Jones and Barrington Taylor-Jones were driving north on Willowbrook and attempted to turn left onto Alondra. Plaintiffs found themselves at a red light with a train approaching. In moving the car off the tracks, plaintiffs collided with defendant Jasmin Pimental, who was travelling southbound on Willowbrook. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, County of Los Angeles, City of Compton, and the State of California are also named as defendants.

The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) negligence/motor vehicle, and (2) statutory liability/dangerous condition of public property;

Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority now demurs to the first cause of action. The demurrer is unopposed, as no opposition has been filed as of March 10, 2020.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court sustains the demurrer.

Standard

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) In testing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.App.4th 634, 638.) Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. (C.C.P., § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.)

Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case “with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.) “Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer.” (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.) Under Code Civil Procedure § 430.10(f), a demurrer may also be sustained if a complaint is “uncertain.” Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual allegations are so confusing they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

Analysis

Defendant argues that it is immune from general negligence causes of action, and the Court agrees. “ ‘[A] public entity is not liable for an injury,’ ‘[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute.” [Gov. Code, § 815.] In other words, direct tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care, and not on the general tort provisions of Civil Code section 1714.” (Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1183.) “[T]o state a cause of action every fact essential to the existence of statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity. . . .” (Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802.)

To state a negligence cause of action against moving Defendant, Plaintiffs must outline a specific statutory basis for liability. Plaintiffs’ first cause of action is comprised of allegations relevant to the collision between the vehicles. Specifically, it alleges that Defendants “negligently owned, operated, and maintained a vehicle so as to collide with Plaintiffs [sic] vehicle.” (Complaint, ¶ 10.) The cause of action does not allege a statutory basis for negligence against Defendant, so the demurrer must be sustained.

Ruling

The demurrer is sustained with 20 days’ leave to amend. Any responsive pleading is due 20 days thereafter, or 25 if served by mail.

Next dates: