Case Number: BC534190    Hearing Date: August 11, 2014    Dept: 92

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

KODY QUINN,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC534190

[TENTATIVE] ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #17
August 11, 2014

Defendant, County of Los Angeles’s Demurrer is Sustained With Leave to Amend. Plaintiff is ordered to file a First Amended Complaint within ten days. Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading within the statutory time thereafter.

Plaintiff, Kody Quinn filed this action against Defendants, County of Los Angeles and Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital for negligence and medical malpractice, respectively. Plaintiff alleges he was injured in a single-vehicle motorcycle accident caused by the condition of the road, and alleges he was further injured by the hospital’s care and treatment.

The County demurs to the complaint, contending it lacks specificity and fails to state any statutory basis for the cause of action. The complaint is a relatively bare bones judicial council form complaint, and the allegations against the County are limited to the following:
Defendants, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly owned, inspected, maintained, lighted, designed, constructed and repaired the public highway/street at and near the above referenced location, so as to cause Plaintiff, while operating a motorcycle at said location, to fall and sustain physical injury and property damage.
As a proximate result of the negligence of the defendants, and each of them, plaintiff sustained severe and continuing physical injury and general damages for pain and suffering. Plaintiff required medical care and incurred corresponding special damages in the form of medical bills and related expenses, lost earnings, and loss of future earnings, all in a sum to not fully ascertained and subject to proof at the time of trial.

As Defendant correctly notes in demurrer, all complaints against governmental entities must be grounded in statute. See Gov Code §815. Plaintiff’s complaint sounds in general negligence, which is not a statutory cause of action. Plaintiff argues in opposition that the complaint sounds in dangerous condition of public property, which is a claim created by Gov Code §835. §835, however, is never mentioned in the complaint.

Further compounding the situation, the complaint fails entirely to plead any specific facts against the County. Per Brenner v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 439, all complaints against public entities must be pleaded with specificity. Plaintiff argues in opposition that he has responded to discovery, and has given Defendant more details about his claim via discovery responses. Case law, however, requires those details to be pled in the complaint when the complaint is against a public entity. Plaintiff also cites numerous cases holding that negligence can be pleaded in general terms; those cases, however, do not involve claims against governmental entities, and are therefore not controlling.

The demurrer is sustained. Plaintiff is ordered to file a First Amended Complaint, in compliance with this order, within ten days. Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading within the statutory time thereafter.

Dated this 11th day of August, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court