Case Number: BC534431    Hearing Date: July 23, 2014    Dept: 58

JUDGE ROLF M. TREU
DEPARTMENT 58
________________________________________
Hearing Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Calendar No: 9
Case Name: Quinlen, et al. v. Long, et al.
Case No.: BC534431
Motion: (1) Demurrer
(2) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Moving Party: (1) Defendant Automobile Club of Southern California
(2) Defendant California Department of Motor Vehicles
Responding Party: Plaintiffs John I. Quinlen and John I Quinlen, Jr.
Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Demurrer is sustained. Motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. Leave to amend is denied.
________________________________________

Background –
On 1/28/14, Plaintiffs John I. Quinlen (“John”) and John I. Quinlen, Jr. (“John Jr.”) filed this action against Defendants Veronica Long, Automobile Club of Southern California (“ACSC”), California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”), City of Alhambra, and City of Los Angeles arising out of the transfer of title of an automobile and the arrest of John Jr. for possession of a stolen vehicle.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for (1) fraud – intentional misrepresentation, (2) conversion, (3) trespass to chattels, (4) defamation, (5) negligence against ACSC, (6) violation of Gov’t Code § 815.2 against DMV, (7) violation of Vehicle Code § 1653 against DMV, (8) violation of Gov’t Code § 815.2 against City of Alhambra, (9) violation of Gov’t Code § 815.2 against City of Los Angeles, (10) violation of Penal Code § 836(a) against City of Los Angeles, and (11) violation of Penal Code § 148.5. The 1st through 4th and 11th COAs are asserted against Long only.

On 4/29/14, the Court sustained City of Los Angeles’ demurrer to the 9th COA without leave to amend. On 6/4/14, the Court was informed of a partial settlement and Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action with prejudice as to City of Los Angeles and City of Alhambra.

Factual Allegations of the Complaint –
John’s brother, Dennis W. Quinlen, owned a 2008 BMW and died on 2/25/12 with John being his only heir. ¶ 7. On 4/5/12, the BMW was transferred to John who authorized his son John Jr. to drive it. ¶¶ 8-9.

Long was a friend of Dennis and contacted ACSC to transfer title of the BMW to Long. ¶ 10. Long, through ACSC, caused the DMV to issue a certificate of title for the BMW to Long. ¶¶ 11-12. ACSC and DMV failed to verify the accuracy of Long’s information. ¶ 13. After Long obtained the certificate of title, she contacted the City of Alhambra’s police department and reported the BMW as stolen by or in the possession of John Jr. ¶ 14. The City of Alhambra designated the BMW as stolen and communicated this to the City of Los Angeles’ police department. ¶ 15. The City of Alhambra and the City of Los Angeles failed to verify the accuracy of the information (¶¶ 15-16), resulting in John Jr. being arrested for possession of a stolen vehicle (¶ 16) and the BMW being impounded and later released to Long (¶ 17).

Demurrer –
ACSC demurs to the 5th COA for negligence, the only claim asserted against it. ACSC argues that Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts to support a legal duty owed to Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Burns v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 479, 487-88. The Court agrees.

“A person is ordinarily not liable for the actions of another and is under no duty to protect another from harm, in the absence of a special relationship of custody or control.” Roman Catholic Bishop v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1556, 1564. Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts giving rise to a special relationship with ACSC.

While Plaintiffs allege that ACS has resources and contacts with DMV (Complaint ¶ 11), no facts are alleged to support any duty of ACSC owed to Plaintiffs to verify the accuracy of Long’s information. Cf. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Montes-Harris (2006) 40 Cal.4th 151, 162-63 (rental car companies complied with their statutory drivers’ license inspection duties by inspecting a facially valid license and verifying the signature); Burns v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.Appp.4th 479, 489 (retailer owed no duty to inquire as to tendered corporate checks used to pay personal credit accounts). Therefore, ACSC’s demurrer is sustained as to the 5th COA for failure to allege facts to support a legal duty.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings –
DMV moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the 6th COA for violation of Gov’t Code § 815.2 and the 7th COA for violation of Vehicle Code § 1653, the only claims asserted against it. DMV argues that it is immune based on its discretionary acts (Gov’t Code § 820.2), its authorized conduct (Gov’t Code § 818.4), its alleged failure to enforce law (Gov’t Code § 818.2), and the absence of any liability as to its employees (Gov’t Code § 815.2(b)). The Court agrees.

Plaintiffs’ claims against DMV are based on the failure to verify information provided by ACSC and the failure to determine the true owner of the BMW. See Complaint ¶¶ 55, 62. Vehicle Code § 1653 provides:
The department shall examine and determine the genuineness and regularity of every application or document filed with it under this code and may require additional information or reject any such application or document if not satisfied of the genuineness and regularity thereof or the truth of any statement contained therein.”

By its language, Vehicle Code § 1653 does not impose a mandatory duty designed to protect Plaintiffs against the risk of harm alleged (i.e., conversion of personal property or reports to law enforcement). See, e.g., Creason v. Dept. of Health Services (1998) 18 Cal.4th 623, 630-35. The statute provides only that DMV will “examine and determine the genuineness and regularity of every application or document filed” and provides only a discretionary power to require additional information or reject any application or document if not satisfied with the genuineness, regularity, or truth of any statement. Plaintiffs’ allegations are directed at the discretionary provision of Vehicle Code § 1653. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ claims against DVM implicate immunity for discretionary acts (Gov’t Code § 820.2) and immunity for failure to enforce Vehicle Code § 1653 (Gov’t Code § 818.2).

Additionally, to the extent Plaintiffs’ claims are based on DMV’s issuance of the certificate of title for the BMW to Long (Complaint ¶¶ 54, 61), this is authorized by Vehicle Code § 6050 which implicates immunity pursuant to Gov’t Code § 818.4.

Lastly, Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts as to independent tort liability against DMV’s employees (see Complaint ¶ 55 (asserting that DMV’s employees failed to use reasonable care to verify information provided by ACSC and the failure to determine the true owner of the BMW)) based on the immunities discussed above.

DMV’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as to the 6th and 7th COAs.

Leave to Amend –
Although this is the first challenge to the pleadings addressed by the Court (with respect to ACSC and DMV), the Court is inclined to deny leave to amend because the facts are not in dispute and the nature of Plaintiffs’ claims are clear. See Lawrence v. Bank of America (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 431, 436.