Case Name: ShaRon Hassan v. Santa Clara County Law Library

Case No.: 1-14-CV-270976

Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint by Defendant Santa Clara County Law Library; Motion to Amend Complaint by Plaintiff ShaRon Hassan

On September 23, 2014, plaintiff ShaRon Hassan (“Hassan”) filed a Judicial Council form complaint against defendant Santa Clara County Law Library (“Law Library”) purportedly asserting claims for general negligence and premises liability, but without attaching said form causes of action or setting forth any factual allegations.

On January 13, 2015, defendant Law Library filed one of the two motions now before the court, a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint.

On February 2, 2015, plaintiff filed the second motion now before the court, a motion to amend complaint.

I. Defendant Law Library’s demurrer to the complaint is SUSTAINED.

A. Request for judicial notice.

In support of and in reply to its demurrer, defendant Law Library requests judicial notice of the complaint, plaintiff’s first amended complaint and plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed in case number 1-14-CV-270403. Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d) states that the court may take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of any court of this state.” This section of the statute has been interpreted to mean that the trial court may take judicial notice of the existence of the court’s own records. Evidence Code section 452 and 453 permit the trial court to “take judicial notice of the existence of judicial opinions and court documents, along with the truth of the results reached—in the documents such as orders, statements of decision, and judgments—but [the court] cannot take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions or court files, including pleadings, affidavits, testimony, or statements of fact.” (People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448, 455.) Accordingly, defendant Law Library’s request for judicial notice in support of demurrer is GRANTED. To the extent the request for judicial notice is granted, the court takes judicial notice of the existence of the documents, not necessarily the truth of any matters asserted therein.

B. Failure to state a cause of action.

Defendant Law Library demurs on the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action [Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd. (e)] for either general negligence or premises liability.

In opposition, plaintiff offers no substantive legal argument and instead states she intends/ intended to file a first amended complaint.

Accordingly, defendant Law Library’s demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action [Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd. (e)] for either general negligence or premises liability is SUSTAINED with 10 days’ leave to amend.

Defendant will have an opportunity to challenge plaintiff’s amended pleading.

II. Plaintiff Hassan’s motion to amend complaint is MOOT.

In view of the court’s ruling above, plaintiff Hassan’s motion to amend complaint is deemed MOOT.