Case Number: 19STCV14606 Hearing Date: September 19, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

VERONICA SOLEIMANI,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: 19STCV14606

[TENTATIVE] ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

September 19, 2019

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Veronica Soleimani filed this action against Defendants, Cheviot Hills Recreation Park, Rancho Park Gold Course, and the City of Los Angeles for damages arising out of injuries sustained when she was struck with an errant golf ball on Defendants’ premises. Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of action for premises liability and general negligence.

2. Demurrer

The City demurs to the complaint, contending (a) to the extent the premises liability cause of action sounds in common law, it cannot be pled against a public entity, (b) to the extent the premises liability cause of action sounds in dangerous condition of public property, it is insufficiently pled, (c) to the extent the premises liability cause of action is grounded in failure to warn, it cannot be pled against a public entity and (d) the general negligence cause of action cannot stand against a public entity defendant.

a. First Cause of Action, Premises Liability

Plaintiff’s judicial council form complaint includes an attachment for premises liability, and Plaintiff indicates she is suing the City for (a) count one – negligence, (b) count two – willful failure to warn, and (c) count three – dangerous condition of public property.

Pursuant to Gov Code §815(a), all liability against a public entity must be grounded in statute. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff bases her premises liability cause of action on a “negligence” theory, the cause of action is insufficiently pled against the City.

Pursuant to Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 699, 704, Civil Code §846 does not apply to public entities. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff bases her premises liability cause of action on a violation of §846, the cause of action is insufficiently pled against the City.

Pursuant to Lopez v. S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795, any cause of action pled against a public entity must be pled with specificity. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege all required elements of Gov Code §835, which forms the basis of a claim for dangerous condition of public property. Thus, to the extent the cause of action is premised on the contention that there was a dangerous condition of public property, the cause of action is insufficiently pled against the City.

Because each count in the premises liability cause of action fails to state a claim against the City, the demurrer to the premises liability cause of action is sustained.

b. Second Cause of Action, General Negligence

As noted above, per Gov Code §815(a), a cause of action for general negligence cannot be pled against a public entity. The demurrer to the second cause of action for general negligence is therefore also sustained.

c. Leave to Amend

Any opposition to the demurrer was due on or before 9/06/19. The Court has not received opposition to the demurrer. Additionally, Defense Counsel declares he made numerous attempts to meet and confer prior to filing the demurrer, and Plaintiff failed entirely to respond.

A plaintiff may not amend as a matter of right, and in order to be in a position to complain upon appeal of an abuse of discretion in sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, he must ask permission to amend, unless it is made to appear that he had no opportunity to ask such permission. Williams v. Hinckley (1930) 109 Cal.App. 574, 576.

In light of the lack of opposition and the failure to meet and confer, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.