2018-00242422-CU-PA

Kayla Rumble vs. Lyft, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Hearing on Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss

Filed By: Bolle, Lisa M.

The demurrer of Defendant The Hertz Corporation, sued as Hertz Vehicle, LLC, (Hertz) is OVERRULED.

Hertz’ request for judicial notice of the complaint filed in this action is GRANTED.

This is a personal injury case involving a vehicle collision. The sole cause of action is for negligence. Plaintiff Kayla Rumble (Rumble) is suing Hertz, Lyft, Inc. and Clother Dockery, Jr., for injuries she sustained after allegedly hiring them to transport her to her home. Among other things, she alleges that each defendant negligently maintained the vehicle and thereby caused the collision. (See Compl., ¶ 8.) She also advances theories of negligence based on the defendants’ ownership, entrustment and operation of the vehicle. (See id.)

Hertz demurs on grounds that the allegations are uncertain, fail to state a valid cause of action and attempt to join it improperly as a defendant. Rumble opposes.

The demurrer for uncertainty is overruled.

Notwithstanding that Rumble directs many her allegations at all three defendants collectively, the allegations are not so uncertain that Hertz cannot frame a response. Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are only granted where the complaint is so muddled that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. The favored approach is to clarify theories in the complaint through discovery. (See Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; 1 Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2018), § 7:85, p. 7(l)-41, -42.)

The demurrers for misjoinder and failure to state a cause of action are overruled as well.

In the moving papers, Hertz argues incorrectly that Rumble predicates liability solely on its alleged ownership of the vehicle. Citing the federal “Graves Amendment” in 49 USC § 301016(a), Hertz argues that state law is preempted to the extent Rumble bases liability on the negligence of a renter. And it argues that the allegations are too conclusory to establish the elements of negligence.

In opposition, however, Rumble points out that she alleges Hertz’ vicarious liability as well as its direct liability. Allegations that Hertz negligently maintained the vehicle do not tender a theory of vicarious liability.

In reply, Hertz reiterates its position that the allegations are too conclusory to survive demurrer. The court, however, disagrees. Perhaps Rumble has alleged the bare minimum, but there is enough here to proceed on theory of negligent maintenance. As a consequence, the court need not decide whether Rumble’s allegations about vicarious liability are preempted or otherwise defective. (See Fremont Indemn. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119 [A demurrer is not the appropriate

vehicle to challenge less than an entire cause of action].)

Disposition

The demurrer is overruled.

Hertz shall file and serve its answer to the complaint no later than 1/18/19.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or further notice is required.