Hearing Demurrer

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.December 13, 2016

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Susan Estes et al vs Alfredo Cunha et al Hearing Start Time: 9:00 AM 16CV303950 Hearing Type: Hearing: Demurrer Date of Hearing: 05/24/2018 Comments: Heard By: Zayner, Theodore C Location: Department 6 Courtroom Reporter: - No Record Transcribed Courtroom Clerk: Maggie Castellon Court Interpreter: Court Investigator: Parties Present: Future Hearings: Exhibits: - No appearance. Tentative ruling is adopted. Currently before the Court is the demurrer by Geico Indemnity Company to the complaint of plaintiffs Susan Estes and Kelly Estes (collectively, Plaintiffs ). Factual and Procedural Background This action is for personal injury and property damage arising out of two motor vehicle accidents. On December 19, 2014, defendant Maria Rodriguez ( Rodriguez ) negligently operated a motor vehicle at the intersection of Hostetter Road and Four Oaks Road causing injuries and damages to Plaintiffs. (Complaint, p. 4, MV-1 and MV-2.) Defendant Sondra Arostigui ( Arostigui ) allegedly owned the subject motor vehicle and entrusted it to Rodriguez. (Id. at MV-2.) Thereafter, on August 7, 2015, defendant Alfredo Cunha (Cunha ) negligently operated a motor vehicle at Junction Avenue, near Charcot Avenue, causing injuries and damages to Plaintiffs. (Id. at p. 5, MV-1 and MV-2.) Based on the foregoing allegations, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Rodriguez, Arostigui, Cunha, and Doe defendants 1-20 alleging two causes of action for negligence. On July 19, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Doe amendment to the complaint, identifying Geico Insurance Company as Doe 1. Most recently, on January 30, 2018, Geico Indemnity Company filed the instant demurrer to Plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiffs filed papers in opposition to the demurrer on May 10, 2018. Discussion Geico Indemnity Company demurs to the complaint on the grounds that there is a defect or misjoinder of Printed: 5/24/2018 05/24/201 8 Healing: Demurrer - 16CV303950 Page 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER parties and the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc., 430.10, subds. (d) and (e).) I. Legal Standard The function of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a pleading. (Trs. Of Capital Wholesale Elec. Etc. Fund v. Shearson Lehman Bros. (1990) 221 Cal.App3d 617, 621.) Consequently, [a] demurrer reaches only to the contents of the pleading and such matters as may be considered under the doctrine ofjudicial notice. (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732, internal citations and quotations omitted; see also Code Civ. Proc., 430.30, subd. (3).) It is not the ordinary function of a demurrer to test the truth of the [] allegations [in the challenged pleading] or the accuracy with which [the plaintiff] describes the defendant s conduct. [ ] Thus, [] the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be. (Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 958, internal citations and quotations omitted.) However, while [a] demurrer admits all facts properly pleaded, [it does] not [admit] contentions, deductions or conclusions of law or fact. (George v. Automobile Club of Southern California (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1120.) II. Request for Judicial Notice In its memorandum of points and authorities, Geico Indemnity Company asks the Court to take judicial notice of various documents filed in this action. (Mem. Ps. & As., p. 4:18-20.) This request fails to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(1), which provides that any request forjudicial notice must be made in a separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested. Therefore, Geico Indemnity Company s request for judicial notice is DENIED. |||. Substantive Merits of the Demurrer As a threshold issue, though not addressed by the parties, Geico Indemnity Company lacks standing to demur to the complaint because a party can demur only to those claims filed against it (Code Civ. Proc., 430.10 [a demurrer may be filed only by [t]he party against whom a complaint has been filed ]; see Patrick v. Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995, 1004) and Geico Indemnity Company is not named as a defendant in the complaint. The party named as Doe 1 in the Doe amendment filed July 19, 2017, is Geico Insurance Company. |n its papers, Geico Indemnity Company acknowledges that it and Geico Insurance Company are not the same entity. |n fact, Geico Indemnity Company states that there is no such entity as Geico Insurance Company. (Ntc. Dem., p. 2:7-8; Mem. Ps. & As., p. 5:11-14.) |n their opposition, Plaintiffs state that they have since amended their DOE amendment to identify and name GEICO Indemnity Company as the proper party . (Opp n., p. 2:10-13.) However, no such amendment is reflected in the case file or the electronic case management system. Based on the court records, there has Printed: 5/24/2018 05/24/201 8 Healing: Demurrer - 16CV303950 Page 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER been not any further amendment t0 the complaint after the Doe amendment was filed on July 19, 2017. In light 0f the foregoing, Geico Indemnity Company is not a party t0 this action. Accordingly, Geico Indemnity Company s demurrer t0 the complaint is OVERRULED. - 00000 - Printed: 5/24/2018 05/24/201 S Healing: Demun'er - 160303950 Page 3 of}