This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/30/2021 at 07:59:40 (UTC).

SARA CLIMACO VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 06/24/2021 SARA CLIMACO filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3534

  • Filing Date:

    06/24/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CLIMACO SARA

Defendants

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DOE BUS DRIVER

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GHERMEZIAN RAYMOND

Defendant Attorneys

OZERAN DAVID J.

WEND CHRISTOPHER P

HUR ELISE HYON

 

Court Documents

Answer

9/22/2021: Answer

Notice of Ruling

8/31/2021: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTH...)

8/30/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANT LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTH...)

Request for Dismissal

8/10/2021: Request for Dismissal

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

8/23/2021: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

8/13/2021: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

Answer

7/21/2021: Answer

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

7/23/2021: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Demand for Jury Trial

7/26/2021: Demand for Jury Trial

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

8/9/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Proof of Personal Service

6/30/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

6/30/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

7/1/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

PI General Order

7/2/2021: PI General Order

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATES

7/2/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATES

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

6/24/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/24/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

6/24/2021: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/20/2024
  • Hearing06/20/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2022
  • Hearing12/22/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2022
  • Hearing12/08/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY dba METRO Erroneously Sued As Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY dba METRO Erroneously Sued As Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Auth...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY dba METRO Erroneously Sued As Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2021
  • DocketReply (Reply to Opposition to Demurrer to Complaint); Filed by LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY dba METRO Erroneously Sued As Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Sara Climaco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
4 More Docket Entries
  • 07/02/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Dates); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2021
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Sara Climaco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Sara Climaco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Sara Climaco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Sara Climaco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Sara Climaco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Sara Climaco (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 21STCV23534 Hearing Date: August 30, 2021 Dept: 28

\r\n\r\n

Demurrer

\r\n\r\n

Having reviewed the demurrer,\r\nOpposition, and Reply, the Court rules as follows.

\r\n\r\n

BACKGROUND

\r\n\r\n

On June 24, 2021, Plaintiff\r\nSara Climaco (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Los Angeles\r\nCounty Metropolitan Transportation Authority d/b/a (erroneously sued as Los\r\nAngeles County Metropolitan Transportation); DOE Bus Driver; County of Los\r\nAngeles, City of Los Angeles; and DOES 1 – 100, inclusive, alleging 3 causes of\r\naction arising from injuries sustained while riding in a public bus on March\r\n29, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

On July 23, 2021,\r\nDefendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”)\r\nbrought this instant demurrer.

\r\n\r\n

On August 9, 2021,\r\nPlaintiff filed an Opposition.

\r\n\r\n

On August 13, 2021,\r\nDefendant LACMTA filed a Reply.

\r\n\r\n

Trial is set for\r\nDecember 22, 2022.

\r\n\r\n

PARTY’S REQUEST

\r\n\r\n

LACMTA demurs from the\r\nThird Cause of Action (‘Violations of Duties as a Common Carrier under Civil\r\nCode sections 2100, 2101, and 2103’) on the basis that the cause of action\r\nfails to state a factual basis showing violations of Civil Code §§ 2101 and 2103, and because the cause of\r\naction is uncertain and does not indicate how Defendant’s conduct was tortious.

\r\n\r\n

LEGAL STANDARD

\r\n\r\n

Meet\r\nand Confer

\r\n\r\n

Before\r\nfiling a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the\r\nparty who filed the pleading demurred to, in person or telephonically, for the\r\npurposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of\r\nan amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the\r\ndemurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41.)

\r\n\r\n

Demurrer

\r\n\r\n

Code\r\nof Civil Procedure section 430.10 provides, in relevant part:

\r\n\r\n

The party against whom a complaint or\r\ncross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in\r\nSection 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:

\r\n\r\n

(a) The court has no jurisdiction of the\r\nsubject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.\r\n(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to\r\nsue.\r\n(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same\r\ncause of action.\r\n(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.\r\n(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of\r\naction.\r\n(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain”\r\nincludes ambiguous and unintelligible.\r\n(g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from\r\nthe pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by\r\nconduct.\r\n(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.

\r\n\r\n

A\r\ndemurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.\r\n(Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the\r\nallegations liberally and in context. (Taylor\r\nv. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th\r\n1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding,\r\nthe defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial\r\nnotice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins.\r\nCo. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) \r\n“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other\r\nextrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies\r\nonly where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially\r\nnoticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior\r\nCourt (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) \r\n“The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint,\r\nas it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th\r\nat p. 747.) The ultimate facts alleged\r\nin the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied\r\nor inferred from those expressly alleged. \r\n(Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th\r\n1397, 1403; see also Shields v. County of San Diego (1984) 155\r\nCal.App.3d 103, 133 [stating, “[o]n demurrer, pleadings are read liberally, and\r\nallegations contained therein are assumed to be true”].)

\r\n\r\n

DISCUSSION

\r\n\r\n

The Court first notes that Defendant did\r\nproperly attempt to meet & confer, but was unable to get a hold of\r\nPlaintiff’s counsel to do so.

\r\n\r\n

As Defendant LACMTA properly notes,\r\nPlaintiff’s Complaint is factually barren in stating how Plaintiff sustained\r\nher alleged injuries. By reading the allegations contained in the First Cause\r\nof Action that are incorporated into the Third Cause of Action against\r\nDefendant LACMTA, it becomes slightly clearer that Plaintiff is alleging that\r\n“certain premises inside the bus line number 206 routing South Normandie Ave.,\r\nand Gage Ave.,” were subject to a dangerous condition that caused Plaintiff’s\r\ninjuries. Plaintiff does not state what the condition was, or how the condition\r\ncame to injure her. It is unclear whether a dangerous condition (such as\r\nspilled liquid) caused Plaintiff to slip and fall within the bus, or if\r\nPlaintiff was injured by improper maintenance of the bus’s components. Making\r\nmatters more confusing is that the Third Cause of Action makes allegations of\r\nnegligent hiring/training/retention/supervision, failure to provide safe\r\nvehicles for passengers such as Plaintiff to ride in, and failure to treat\r\nPlaintiff with civility and to provide proper attention to Plaintiff.

\r\n\r\n

Because the Third Cause of Action is based on alleged violations of a\r\nstatute, the allegations must be pleaded with a higher degree of specificity.\r\nThe liberal pleading requirement applicable to common law torts does not apply\r\nto statutory causes of action. (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court\r\n(2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790 [recognizing the "general rule that statutory\r\ncauses of action must be pleaded with particularity"].) A complaint must\r\nallege facts sufficient to support each element of the cause of action. (Martin\r\nv. Bridgeport Community Assn., Inc. (2009) 173 Cal. App.4th 1024, 1031\r\n["The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the facts pleaded are\r\nsufficient to establish every element of the cause of action. . .”].)

\r\n\r\n

Civil Code § 2101 states that “A carrier of persons for reward is bound to provide vehicles\r\nsafe and fit for the purposes to which they are put and is not excused for\r\ndefault in this respect by any degree of care.” Civil Code § 2103 states that a “carrier of persons for reward must\r\ngive to passengers all such accommodations as are usual and reasonable, and\r\nmust treat them with civility, and give them a reasonable degree of attention.”

\r\n\r\n

Here, Plaintiff neither alleges what condition made the\r\nvehicle unsafe or unfit for its purpose of transporting passengers nor what\r\naccommodation(s) Defendant LACTMA failed to provide Plaintiff.

\r\n\r\n

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff is not\r\nrequired to plead with specificity; rather, Plaintiff only needs to provide\r\nfacts sufficient to bring a cause of action based on a reasonable\r\ninterpretation of the Complaint wherein the allegations are liberally\r\nconstrued. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Serrano v.\r\nPriest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591; Aubrey v. Tri-City Hospital Dist.\r\n(1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967; Code of Civil Procedure § 452.) Plaintiff moreover\r\ncontends that the Third Cause of Action is not uncertain, because it provides\r\nthe date and location of the subject incident. Plaintiff moreover contends that\r\nthe Complaint makes clear that Plaintiff hit her head, body, and face against\r\nthe bus because of a dangerous condition. This is perhaps most demonstrative of\r\nthe issues with the Complaint: the nature of the injuries themselves is not\r\nnearly as important for the pleading as what caused those injuries, yet\r\nPlaintiff provides no information whatsoever regarding the latter.

\r\n\r\n

Here,\r\nthe Court finds that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient facts to bring a\r\ncause of action. The Complaint is totally unclear as to what condition existed\r\nthat caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Using the standard set by controlling case\r\nlaw Plaintiff provided, People v. Taliaferro, it is clear to the Court\r\nthat Plaintiff’s Complaint and the allegations contained therein are\r\ninsufficient “to apprise the\r\ndefendant of the issues which he was to meet.” (People v. Taliaferro\r\n(1957) 149 Cal. App. 2d 822, 824-25.) Even a reasonable interpretation\r\nof the Complaint that construes any allegations liberally and in favor of\r\nPlaintiff leaves the Court with no understanding of what condition caused\r\nPlaintiff’s injuries, or how. While Plaintiff is not required to plead every\r\nfact with specificity, there must be at least some discernible factual\r\nallegations supporting a cause of action.

\r\n\r\n

Therefore, the Demurrer must be\r\nSUSTAINED.

\r\n\r\n

CONCLUSION

\r\n\r\n

Defendant LACMTA’s\r\nDemurrer as to the Third Cause of Action is SUSTAINED.

\r\n\r\n

The Court grants\r\nPlaintiff 20 days leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

Defendant LACMTA is\r\nordered to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for\r\nfurther instructions.

\r\n\r\n'