This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/25/2021 at 09:00:53 (UTC).

CONNIE FIFE VS MADISON MARQUETTE REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC.

Case Summary

On 03/02/2020 CONNIE FIFE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against MADISON MARQUETTE REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are EDWARD B. MORETON and WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8461

  • Filing Date:

    03/02/2020

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

EDWARD B. MORETON

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

FIFE CONNIE

Defendants, Cross Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

MADISON MARQUETTE REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION

CVFI-S LAKE AVENUE LP DOE 1

MODERN PARKING INC. DOE 2

FITNESS INTERNATIONAL LLC DOE 3

MODERN PARKING INC.

ROES 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE

FITNESS INTERNATIONAL LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GUERRERO ALEX DAVID

Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

BORSUTZKI CLAUDIA

WAYNE ERIC JEFFREY

DE METRUIS CHRISTINE C.

BAGNASCHI CHRISTOPHER JOHN

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

7/13/2021: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

6/15/2021: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT)

6/15/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT)

Notice of Ruling

6/17/2021: Notice of Ruling

Request for Dismissal

6/24/2021: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

6/25/2021: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

6/25/2021: Request for Dismissal

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE OSC RE DISMISSAL 45 DAYS

4/26/2021: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE OSC RE DISMISSAL 45 DAYS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT)

4/26/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT)

Separate Statement - DEFENDANT, FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLCS, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

1/29/2021: Separate Statement - DEFENDANT, FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLCS, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

Motion for Summary Judgment - DEFENDANT, FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLCS, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT; MEMORA

1/29/2021: Motion for Summary Judgment - DEFENDANT, FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLCS, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT; MEMORA

Declaration - DECLARATION OF CHRISTY PHAM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT, FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLCS, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

1/29/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF CHRISTY PHAM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT, FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLCS, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ALICE CHEN SMITH AND EXHIBITS ISO OF MSJ

1/29/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ALICE CHEN SMITH AND EXHIBITS ISO OF MSJ

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ALICE CHEN SMITH IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANT, FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1/29/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ALICE CHEN SMITH IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANT, FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION OF CHRISTY PHAM IN SUPPORT OF FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1/29/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF CHRISTY PHAM IN SUPPORT OF FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1/29/2021: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE AND SPECIALLY SET MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE C. DE METRUIS

1/29/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE AND SPECIALLY SET MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE C. DE METRUIS

Motion for Summary Judgment

1/29/2021: Motion for Summary Judgment

65 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/13/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by CONNIE FIFE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by CVFI-S Lake Avenue, LP (Doe 1) (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by MADISON MARQUETTE REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC., a Delaware Corporation (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by CONNIE FIFE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Dismissal following Settlement) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Modern Parking, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal following Settlement)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (by by Defendant Fitness International, LLC) - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
75 More Docket Entries
  • 05/05/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by MADISON MARQUETTE REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC., a Delaware Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2020
  • DocketSummons (Cross-Complaint); Filed by MADISON MARQUETTE REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC., a Delaware Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2020
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by MADISON MARQUETTE REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC., a Delaware Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2020
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by CONNIE FIFE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Dates); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by CONNIE FIFE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by CONNIE FIFE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by CONNIE FIFE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCV08461    Hearing Date: December 31, 2020    Dept: A

The Superior Court is open under “Here for You | Safer for You” Conditions and Orders

Counsel are urged to use remote appearance technology LACourtConnect

If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks (without a valve) are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force.

Dept. A Burbank protocol for LACourtConnect Appearances.

Video Appearances: Since these are the functional equivalent of a personal appearance in court, no special protocols are in place at this time.

Audio Only Appearances.

1. Argument is limited to three minutes, unless the court grants a request for additional time.

2. The reading of argument is feckless and nugatory.

3. State your name at the beginning of all statements.

4. Do not speak directly to other counsel without permission of court.

5. Do not interrupt or attempt to speak over another speaker.

6. Do not announce your presence until called by your name or case name.

7. Take a deep breath frequently so that the court may interrupt your presentation, if necessary. (The system does not default to the court unless you are placed on mute by the court or go silent or mute on you own.)

8. Maintain silence in your surroundings – no keyboarding, dogs barking, children crying, etc.

Fife v Madison Marquette

Motion for Trial Preference;

Demurrer

Calendar:

20

Case No.:

20STCV08461

Hearing Date:

December 31, 2020

Action Filed:

March 02, 2020

Trial Date:

Not Set

Trial Preference

MP:

Plaintiff Connie Fife

RP:

Defendant Fitness International, LLC

Demurrer

MP:

Defendant Fitness International, LLC

RP:

Plaintiff Connie Fife

ALLEGATIONS:

Connie Fife ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Madison Marquette Real Estate Services Inc. ("Marquette"), CVFI-S Lake Avenue, LP ("CVFI-S"), Modern Parking, Inc. ("Modern"), and Fitness International, LLC ("Fitness", and collectively, "Defendants"), alleging that Plaintiff slipped and fell on a puddle of water ("Subject Incident") and sustained injuries while walking through the underground parking garage at LA Fitness, located at 251 S. Lake Avenue, Pasadena, California 91101 ("Subject Premises"). Plaintiff alleges that the underground garage was flooded due to a nonexistent or inadequate drainage system after it had rained prior to Plaintiff's visit to the Subject Premises.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on March 02, 2020 alleging a single cause of action sounding in Negligence – Premises Liability.

On May 05, 2020, Marquette filed a Cross-Complaint ("MAXC") against Modern, alleging five (5) causes of action sounding in: (1) Express Indemnity; (2) Implied Indemnity; (3) Contribution; (4) Declaratory Relief; and (5) Equitable Apportionment.

On May 15, 2020, CVFI-S filed a Cross-Complaint ("CXC") against Modern and Fitness, alleging five (5) causes of action sounding in: (1) Express Indemnity (against Modern); (2) Express Indemnity (against Fitness); (3) Implied Indemnity; (4) Contribution; (5) Declaratory Relief; and (6) Equitable Apportionment.

On June 09, 2020, Modern filed a Cross-Complaint ("MOXC") against Marquette and CVFI-S, alleging four (4) causes of action sounding in: (1) Equitable Indemnity; (2) Apportionment of Fault; (3) Declaratory Relief; and (4) Comparative Indemnity.

PRESENTATION:

The Court received the Motion for Trial Preference filed by Plaintiff on August 21, 2020; Fitness' Opposition on November 16, 2020; and Plaintiff's Reply on November 17, 2020.

The Court received the Demurrer filed by Fitness on November 18, 2020; Plaintiff's Opposition on November 16, 2020; and Fitness' Reply on November 30, 2020.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves for an order granting Plaintiff trial preference.

Fitness demurs to the Complaint.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Trial Preference – CCP § 36(a) permits a party over 70 years of age to seek trial preference. The Court is required to grant the motion if it finds that the party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole, and the health of the party is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a).) Upon granting a motion for preference, the Court must set the matter for trial no more than 120 days from the date of granting. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f).) Further, the Court has discretion to grant a motion for preference where the showing satisfies the Court that the interests of justice will be served by granting preference, or that there is clear and convincing evidence submitted that one of the parties suffers from a condition that places their survival past six months in doubt. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (d) & (e).)

Merits – Plaintiff contends that she is 81 years old with a history of cardiac problems and argues that, as the sole Plaintiff, she has a substantial interest in the litigation. (Decl. Guerrero, ¶¶ 3, 7.) Plaintiff argues that, as a result of the Subject Incident, she suffered injuries to her right hand and wrist, has not fully recovered from those injuries at this time, and is not currently a surgical candidate to ameliorate her injuries due to her age. (Decl. Guerrero, ¶¶ 4-6.) Plaintiff further cites a treating physician, Dr. Kenneth Sabbag, to argue that her age and cardiac history present a 14% risk of death if she were to contract Covid-19. (Decl. Guerrero, ¶ 7.)

In opposition, Fitness argues that Plaintiff's declaration concerning potential risk of death does not meet the burden pursuant to CCP § 36, as there is no evidence or argument that Plaintiff has been exposed to Covid-19, or that she is engaged in any activity that increases her risk of exposure to Covid-19. Fitness further argues that, if the Court is inclined to grant the instant motion, the Court should specially set the hearing date for Fitness' summary judgment motion for March 08, 2021, or to a date that fits the Court's calendar.

In reply, Plaintiff argues that the CCP § 36 burden is met by her elderly condition itself, and further opposes Fitness' request to specially set its summary judgment motion, arguing that Fitness should file its own motion for this purpose.

On review of the moving papers, the Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently meets her burden under CCP § 36 to show that she is over 70 years of age, that she has a substantial interest in the litigation as a whole, and that the interests of justice will be served, given Plaintiff's advanced age and continuing physical injuries, by granting trial preference. The Court will further set Fitness' scheduled summary judgment motion to an earlier date to mitigate prejudice to Fitness, if the parties stipulate in writing.

---

Standard of Review – Demurrer – The grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30(a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318.) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Ibid.)

A demurrer assumes the truth of all factual, material allegations properly pled in the challenged pleading. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.) No matter how unlikely or improbable, the plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.  App. 3d 593, 604.) But this does not include contentions; deductions; conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice.  (Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.)

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.10(e) and (f), the party against whom a complaint has been filed demur to the pleading on the grounds that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or that the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous and/or unintelligible. It is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer if there is a reasonable probability that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1074, 1082, as modified (Dec. 23, 2003).)

A demurrer must specify where exactly uncertainty or ambiguity exists. (see Blanc v. Klumpke (1865) 29 Cal. 156.) Ambiguity and uncertainty exist where it is unclear whether defendants acted in their individual capacity, or another capacity. (see Lapique v. Ruef (1916) 30 Cal.App. 391.) Demurrers for uncertainty are strictly construed and generally disfavored when ambiguities can reasonably be clarified in discovery. (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) A demurrer for uncertainty or ambiguity should be overruled if the alleged uncertain or ambiguous facts are presumptively within the defendant's knowledge. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrer for uncertainty or ambiguity should be overruled when referring to immaterial statements. (see Swasey v. De L'Etanche (1936) 17 Cal.App.2d 713.)

Meet and Confer – CCP § 430.41(a) requires that the demurring party meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the demurrer at least 5 days before the date the responsive pleading is due, by telephone or in person, for the purpose of determining if the parties can resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41.) The demurring party must file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. Failure to meet and confer is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer, or grant or deny a motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, subd. (a)(4); 435.5 subd. (a)(4).)

On review of the Declaration of Christine C. De Metruis, the Court finds that meet and confer requirements have been satisfied to code. (Decl. De Metruis, ¶¶ 3-4.)

Judicial Notice – Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter, unless authorized or required by law. (Evid. Code, § 450.) Matters that are subject to judicial notice are listed in Evid. Code §§ 451 and 452. Applicable here are Evid. Code §§ 452(d) & (h), which provide that the Court may notice "[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States" and "[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy." The Court cannot take judicial notice of the truth of matters contained in judicially noticeable documents if those matters are reasonably subject to dispute. (Intengan v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP (2013) 214 Cal. App. 4th 1047, 1057.) Although the existence of a document may be judicially noticeable, the truth of statements contained in the document and its proper interpretation are not subject to judicial notice if those matters are reasonably disputable. (StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 449, 457, fn. 9.) Taking judicial notice of a document is not, therefore, the same as the court accepting the truth of the document’s contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning. (See Middlebrook-Anderson Co. v. Southwest Sav. & Loan Assn. (1971) 18 Cal. App. 3d 1023, 1038.)

Fitness requests the Court take judicial notice of: (1) Exhibit 1, presented as a copy of the LA Fitness gym website; (2) Exhibit 2, presented as a copy of CVFI-S's cross-complaint; (3) Exhibits B through L, presented as copies of lease agreements between CVFI-S and its predecessors, and Fitness and its predecessors; (4) Exhibit A, presented as an Agreement for Product Services between CVFI-S and its predecessors, and Fitness and its predecessors; and (5) Exhibits C and D, presented as Special Interrogatories, Set One, propounded by CVFI-S to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's responses.

Although Fitness requests the Court take judicial notice of facts within the exhibits attached herein, the Court may not do so as the matters are reasonably disputable. The Court takes judicial notice as to the existence, but not the truth of, Exhibit 2 pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d), and Exhibit 1 and A through L pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(h).

Merits – Premises Liability – Since Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 108, 118-19, the liability of landowners for injuries to people on their property has been governed by general negligence principles. (See Civ. Code § 1714, subd. (a); Pineda v. Ennabe (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1407; Claxton v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 327, 335-36 (Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.); Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal. 4th 659, 664, 672.) Thus, on a negligence theory, the elements of a claim for injuries suffered by an invitee due to a dangerous condition on the premises (whether natural or artificial) are duty, breach, causation, and damages. (See Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 1200, 1205 (Plaintiff shopper slipped on a puddle of milk on the floor of defendant store and suffered significant injuries to his knee.); Cf. also with Civ. Code §1714, subd. (a) (Implicitly, that the defendant owned the property, the defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property, and the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injury.); Sprecher v. Adamson Companies (1981) 30 Cal. 3d 358, 370-71 (It makes no difference whether the danger posed by said lack of care manifests itself in the form of a natural as opposed to an artificial condition on the property.)) Accordingly, as with a negligence cause of action, a complaint for damages for premises liability must allege: (1) defendant's legal duty of care toward plaintiff; (2) defendant's breach of duty, i.e., the negligent act or omission; (3) injury to plaintiff as a result of the breach, i.e., proximate or legal cause; and (4) damage to plaintiff. (Pultz v. Holgerson (1986) 184 Cal. App. 3d 1110, 1117.) No strict requirements exist for the form of such allegations. (Ibid.)

Fitness demurs to the Complaint's single cause of action sounding in Premises Liability on the grounds of uncertainty and failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Fitness argues that the Complaint identifies the Subject Premises as 251 S. Lake Avenue, whereas Fitness is a tenant at the address at 201 S. Lake Avenue. Fitness further argues that the Complaint fails to allege that Fitness had control over the underground parking lot where Plaintiff alleges she suffered injury. Fitness contends that, without alleging that Fitness controls the underground parking garage, the Complaint fails to sufficiently state an action for premises liability.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Complaint sufficiently alleges that the injury occurred at 251 S. Lake Avenue, a centrally located parking garage used by multiple businesses, including Fitness. Plaintiff further argues the Complaint alleges that all defendants "owned, leased, managed, possessed, maintained, occupied and controlled" the underground parking garage.

The Complaint sufficiently alleges that Fitness "owned, leased, managed, possessed, maintained, occupied and controlled" the Subject Premises, and otherwise sufficiently alleges Fitness' legal duty toward Plaintiff to keep the Subject Premises in a reasonably safe condition (Complaint, ¶ 12), Fitness' breach of such duty (Complaint, ¶ 13), Plaintiff's injury as a result of such preach (Complaint, ¶ 17), and Plaintiff's damages (Complaint, ¶¶ 15-16, 18). The grounds for demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters; as the Court takes judicial notice of the existence, but not the truth, of Fitness' judicial notice request, and as the Court assumes the truth of all factual and material allegations in the pleading, this allegation is enough to withstand demurrer. Additionally, paragraph 46 of the lease and paragraph 6 of the addendum raise the issue of control of parking spaces sufficient to withstand demurrer. As the argument regarding uncertainty is based on the same basis, the Court also finds that the Complaint is not uncertain.

Accordingly, the Court will overrule the demurrer.

---

RULING: below,

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff Connie Fife's Motion for Trial Preference and Defendant Fitness International, LLC's Demurrer came on regularly for hearing on December 31, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE IS GRANTED.

THE DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where MADISON MARQUETTE REAL ESTATE SERVIES, INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where MODERN PARKING INC; A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where Fitness International, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BORSUTZKI CLAUDIA