This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/27/2019 at 00:42:39 (UTC).

OLGA HILDENBRAND VS LYFT ENTERPRISE INC

Case Summary

On 11/06/2017 OLGA HILDENBRAND filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against LYFT ENTERPRISE INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2150

  • Filing Date:

    11/06/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HILDENBRAND OLGA

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 20

LYFT ENTERPRISE INC

ZHAMKOCHYAN GEVORG

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MAHGEREFTEH JENNIFER ESQ

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

3/12/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

3/20/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Proof of Personal Service

3/28/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

4/9/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Minute Order

4/22/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

5/1/2019: Notice of Ruling

Proof of Personal Service

5/13/2019: Proof of Personal Service

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

3/21/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

4/23/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/23/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

11/6/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

11/6/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/13/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by OLGA HILDENBRAND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by OLGA HILDENBRAND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by OLGA HILDENBRAND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by OLGA HILDENBRAND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by OLGA HILDENBRAND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2018
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by OLGA HILDENBRAND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by OLGA HILDENBRAND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC682150    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: LYFT, INC.’S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; MOTION TO STRIKE

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 6, 2017, plaintiff Olga Hildenbrand (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Lyft Enterprise, Inc. and Doe defendants alleging negligence and motor vehicle. The allegations arose from Plaintiff’s alleged assault by defendant Gevorg Zhamkochyan on January 31, 2016 when Plaintiff requested a ride through a ridesharing platform On April 11, 2019, Plaintiff requested leave to amend her complaint to name Lyft, Inc. as a defendant after erroneously naming Lyft Enterprise, Inc. Lyft, Inc. (“Defendant”) now demurs on the grounds that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations and the complaint does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.)  “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.  [Citation.]”  (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].)  Allegations are to be liberally construed.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) 

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.  (Ibid.)

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred because the alleged assault occurred on January 31, 2016, but Plaintiff did not bring causes of action against Lyft, Inc. until April 11, 2019 when it substituted Lyft, Inc. for Lyft Enterprise, Inc. Defendant argues that change was not a permissible correction of a party name but an impermissible addition of an entirely new company as a defendant.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a) which authorizes the court to “allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a).) In Diliberti v. Stage Call Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1468, the court addressed the difference between correcting a mistake in the name of a party pursuant to section 473, subdivision (a), and substituting in an entirely new party. “‘[T]he allowance of amendment and relation back to avoid the statute of limitations does not depend on whether the parties are technically or substantially changed; rather the inquiry is as to whether the nature of the action is substantially changed.’ [Citation].” (Id. at p. 1470.) The court pointed to Bank of America v. Superior Court (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 555, where the party was named as Continental Casualty Company but the correct party was Continental Assurance Company. Allowing the party name to be amended was proper because the complaint clearly referred to Continental Assurance Company as the correct party. (Id. at pp. 1470-1471.)

Likewise, here the complaint refers to Defendant Lyft Enterprise, Inc. operating a motor vehicle, employing persons who operated a motor vehicle in the course of their employment, owning a motor vehicle which was operated with their permission, and entrusting a motor vehicle. Allowing an amendment of Defendant’s name from Lyft Enterprise, Inc. to Lyft, Inc. does not change the cause of action in any way. The complaint clearly referred to Lyft, the ride-sharing company, not Lyft, the health care company. Thus, the amendment was a name correction, not a substitution of an entirely new party.

Defendant also argues the complaint fails to state a cause of action against Defendant. Defendant argues the general negligence and motor vehicle causes of action are vague because they do not describe how Defendant’s breach of a duty caused her injury. Defendant is correct. The first two causes of action are vague and confusing. Does Plaintiff intend to allege she was injured when Zhamkochyan was driving the car, such as in a car accident? Or are these causes of action based on the later allegations that Zhamkochyan assaulted Plaintiff? If these causes of action are based on assault, the second cause of action is confusing because it suggests that the driving and entrustment of the vehicle are pertinent, as they could be in a car accident case, but not in an assault case. In addition, the complaint does not allege facts stating how Defendant knew or should have known Zhamkochyan was unfit or incompetent and created a risk of harm to others.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

IV. CONCLUSION

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

Because Defendant’s demurrer is sustained, its motion to strike is MOOT.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.