Case Name: Veeru Gorla, et al. v. City of Sunnyvale, et al.
Case No.: 1-14-CV-262389

Motion For Relief from Filing Late Claim Against Fremont Union High School District

Plaintiff Veeru Gorla moves the Court for an order granting relief from filing a late claim against Fremont Union High School District pursuant to Government Code section 946.6, on the grounds of her incapacitation and resulting tolling of the computation of the one-year period pursuant to Government Code section 911.4, subd. (c)(1). This motion is unopposed and GRANTED.
Demurrer

Defendants The King’s Academy (“TKA”) and Rainbow Montessori Day Care Center, Inc. (“Rainbow”) (collectively, the “Schools”) separately demur to the fifth cause of action in the complaint by plaintiffs Veeru Gorla (“Veeru”), Satya Gorla—individually and as personal representative and guardian ad litem of the heirs and the estate of Lalitha D. Maganti (“the Estate”), and Bhuvanesh Gorla (“Bhuvanesh”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) on the ground of failure to allege sufficient facts. (See Code Civ. Proc. [“CCP”], § 430.10, subd. (e).)

The Schools’ demurrer to the fifth cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. (See Wallman v. Suddock (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1308 [elements of negligence are (1) the defendant’s legal duty; (2) the defendant’s breach of that duty; (3) injury to the plaintiff as a proximate result of that breach; and (4) damage to the plaintiff].) “It is the general rule that in the absence of a statute a landowner is under no duty to maintain in a safe condition a public street abutting upon his property.” (Sexton v. Brooks (1991) 39 Cal.2d 153, 157.) A property owner has “no duty to erect signs for the purpose of controlling or regulating traffic on adjacent public roads,” even where an injury is caused as a result of motorists turning to enter the property owner’s driveway. (A. Teichert & Son, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (Gumpert) (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 657, 663 [“Teichert”], citing Nevarez v. Thriftimart, Inc. (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 799, 805; see also Seaber v. Hotel Del Coronado (1981) 1 Cal.App.4th 481, 487-488 [“Seaber”] [“a landowner is under no duty to maintain in a safe condition a public street or sidewalk abutting upon his property [citation], or to warn travelers of a dangerous condition not created by him but known to him and not to them [citation]”].) Here, no allegations in the complaint suggest that the Schools engaged in activities that created a dangerous condition on Duane Avenue, as simply having a driveway for invitees to use does not impose a duty to make safe or warn of dangerous conditions on the roadway. (See Teichert, supra, at pp. 662-663; see also Veh. Code, § 21372 [“[t]he Department of Transportation and local authorities shall . . . establish and promulgate warrants to be used as guidelines for the placement of traffic control devices near schools”].) Furthermore, Vehicle Code section 21373 provides that “[t]he governing board of any school district may request the appropriate . . . agency to install traffic control devices,” and “[i]f it is determined that such requested protection is warranted, it shall be installed by the city, county, city and county or state agency involved.” The Schools are not a school district, and therefore, Vehicle Code section 21373 does not impose any duty on them to request traffic control devices.