Case Number: BC688669 Hearing Date: March 21, 2018 Dept: 92

ANGEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

BOGIES BAR et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC688669

[TENTATIVE] ORDER SUSTAINING THE DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT

Dept. 92

1:30 p.m.

March 21, 2018

The Demurrer by Westlake Properties to the complaint is SUSTAINED with fifteen days’ leave to amend.

I. Background Facts

On December 29, 2017, plaintiff Angel Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendants Bogies Bar, Bogies Bar: Nightclub and Happy Hour, Bogies at the Westlake Village Inn, Westlake Village LLC and Does 1 to 50 alleging causes of action for (1) general negligence, (2) premises liability, (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress and (4) negligent hiring/retention/supervision.

The complaint alleges that on January 1, 2016, Plaintiff was injured due to the defendants’ negligence and carelessness. (Complaint p.4-7.)

On February 14, 2018, Westlake Properties Inc dba Westlake Village Inn and Bogies at the Westlake Village Inn (erroneously sued as Westlake Village In; Bogies Bar: Nightclub and Happy Hour; Bogies at the Westlake Village Inn; and Westlake Village LLC) demurred to the complaint. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition.

III. Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

IV. Discussion

a. Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (CCP §§ 430.41 and 435.5.) The Court notes that Westlake Properties Inc dba Westlake Village Inn and Bogies at the Westlake Village Inn (jointly “Westlake”) have fulfilled the meet and confer requirement. (See Declaration of Shelby B. Crawford.)

b. Uncertainty

Westlake contends that the complaint and each of its causes of action are fatally uncertain and vague since none of the causes of action asserted in the complaint contain cogent allegations that Westlake breached a legally recognizable duty which caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

A demurrer based on uncertainty only applies where the complaint is so bad that a defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Though California courts take a liberal view toward in artfully drawn pleadings, it remains essential a complaint set forth the actionable facts with sufficient precision to inform the defendant of what the plaintiff is complaining about and what remedies are being sought. (Signal Hill Aviation Co. v. Stroppe (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 627, 636.)

Here, the Court finds that the allegations in the complaint are so uncertain that Westlake cannot be reasonably expected to adequately determine how to properly respond to the allegations made against it. The complaint alleges that on January 1, 2016, at or near 32001 Agoura Road, Westlake Village, CA 91361:

That at said time and place of the accident described in the complaint, defendants and each of them, including but not limited to their employees/agents, did not exercise ordinary care, caution or prudence to avoid or prevent the accident described in said complaint. Said accident and injuries sustained by plaintiff were actually and proximately caused by said fault, carelessness and negligence of defendants and their employees. Specifically, Plaintiff suffered a fractured wrist due to Defendants’ negligence. (Complaint pp. 4-7.)

These allegations are repeated for each cause of action. The Court notes that it is true that a plaintiff need only allege negligence in general terms, which means that it is sufficient to allege that an act was negligently done without stating the particular omission which rendered it negligent. (McBride v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 113, 119.) However, here, the complaint fails to allege even general facts to describe how Plaintiff was injured or what Westlake’s negligent conduct consisted of. Thus, the complaint fails to set forth the essential facts of the case with reasonable precision and with sufficient particularity to acquaint Westlake with the nature, source and extent of the causes of action being alleged. (See Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (1972) 7 Cal.3d 150, 157.)

As such, the allegations or lack of allegations in the complaint render the complaint and the causes of action alleged in the complaint uncertain, as it is not clear how Plaintiff was injured and who is responsible.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the complaint is SUSTAINED with fifteen days’ leave to amend.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.