CASSANDRA RODNEY VS CARLOS RICKETTS, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC06555    Hearing Date: January 08, 2020    Dept: 94

Defendants’ Demurrer on the ground that Plaintiff has alleged facts to support a cause of action is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend. ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff Cassandra Rodney (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Carlos Ricketts (“Ricketts”) and Phyllis Vernon (“Vernon”) (collectively, “Defendants”). 

On August 2, 2019, Defendants filed a Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff’s Complaint included three sentences, some of which were unintelligible. (Compl., ¶ 11.) On September 4, 2019, the Court sustained Defendants’ Demurrer with 30 days’ leave to amend. (9/4/19 Minute Order.) The Court reasoned that Plaintiff failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Id.)

On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), stating:

“That on or about May 17, 2018, in the parking lot at 6700 La Tijera Blvd., Los Angeles, California, Defendants Carlos Ricketts, Sr. and DOE 1 through DOE 5, inclusive, and each of them, so negligently entrusted, owned, managed, maintained repaired, and so carelessly and negligently drove and operated their said vehicle so that the same was forced to and did collide with plaintiff’s 2018 Nissan automobile which said plaintiff was operating, thereby causing plaintiff’s injuries and damages as hereinafter alleged.”

(FAC., p. 4.)

On November 12, 2019, Defendants filed a Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (the “Demurrer”).

To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.

I. Legal Standard

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its

case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to

affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of

America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges

facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not

“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the

complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded

factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of

which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,

however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.

Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.) Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

I. Discussion

The Court finds that the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Demurrer, Bavafa Decl., ¶ 5.)

1. Failure to State Sufficient Facts to Constitute a Cause of Action  

In demurring to the FAC, Defendants contend that Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support a cause of action. (Citing Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

“The elements of a negligence cause of action are the existence of a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.  [Citation.]”  (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) 

The Court finds that, as alleged, Plaintiff’s FAC is insufficient to constitute a cause of action for negligence. Specifically, Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendants had a legal duty of care and that Defendants breached that duty. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to allege any wrongdoing by Defendant Vernon. “Fairness dictates that a complaint gives the defendant sufficient notice of the cause of action stated to be able to prepare the case. [Citation.]” (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 413.) Plaintiff’s allegations give Defendants insufficient notice to defend themselves in this action.

2. Uncertainty

Defendants also contend that the allegations in the complaint are fatally uncertain, citing Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f).

Thus, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Defendants’ demurrer on the ground of uncertainty.

I. Conclusion & Order

Accordingly, Defendants’ Demurrer on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to support a cause of action is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC06555    Hearing Date: December 09, 2019    Dept: 94

Rodney v. Vernon, et al.

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

(CCP § 430.10)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Carlos Ricketts and Phyllis Vernon’s Demurrer to the Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

ANALYSIS:

July 16, 2019, Plaintiff Cassandra Rodney (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against Defendants Carlos Ricketts and Phyllis Vernon (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendant filed a demurrer to the Complaint and on September 4, 2019, the Court sustained the demurrer with 30 days’ leave to amend. The Court also continued the hearing to October 7, 2019 in order to review the Amended Complaint purportedly filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff, however, did not file the First Amended Complaint until September 30, 2019. At the hearing on October 7, 2019, the Court continued the hearing again to December 9, 2019. On November 12, 2019, Defendants filed a demurrer to the First Amended Complaint. The demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is set to be heard on January 8, 2020.

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer to the Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT. THE DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT REMAINS SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 8, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 94.

Moving party to give notice.