Pamela Lacey vs. Luis Galindo

Demurrer to Complaint

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.November 30, 2017

eo 0 N S nt A W N N N N O N N N N N N e e m m em pm p m em N O n t RA W N = O NN S N R W N = O 28 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 Michael L. Wroniak, Esq., State Bar No. 210347 Nicholas Caplin, Esq., State Bar No. 312343 ELECTRONICALLY FILED COLLINS COLLINS MUIR +STEWART LLP Superior Court af Califarmia, 750 The City Drive, Suite 400 County of Orange Orange, CA 92868-4940 01/04/2018 at 03:28:00 FM (714) 823-4100 - FAX (714) 823-4101 Clerk of the Superior Court By Wnique Ramirez, Deputy Clerk Attorneys for COUNTY OF ORANGE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER PAMELA LACEY AND GRACE LACEY, CASE NO. 30-2017-00958719-CU-PO-CIC [Assigned to Hon. Frederick P. Horn, Dept. C32] Plaintiffs, COUNTY OF ORANGE’S DEMURRER TO V. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT COUNTY OF ORANGE, et al., [Concurrently filed with [ Proposed] Order, Request, for Judicial Notice and the Declaration of Nicholas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) J. Caplin] ) ) DATE: February 7, 2018 ) TIME: 1:30 PM ) DEPT.: C32 ) ) Complaint Filed: 11/30/17 ) ) Trial Date: None TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 7, 2018 at 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard in Dept. C32 of the above entitled Court located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, Defendant County of Orange (“County”) will and hereby does demur to all causes of action against the County in Plaintiffs’ Pamela Lacey and Grace Lacey (collectively “Plaintiffs”’) Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10. 1" 20873 1 COUNTY’S DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT 1 The grounds for this demurrer are as follows: 2 1) The first cause of action for Dangerous Condition of Public Property fails to state facts 3 sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) 4 because it establishes County is entitled immunity under Government Code section 831.4. 5 2) The second cause of action for Negligence fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a 6 cause of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e) because it establishes 7 County is entitled immunity under Government Code section 831.4. 8 3) The fourth cause of action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress fails to state 9 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 10 430.10(e) because it establishes County is entitled immunity under Government Code 11 section 831.4. 12 As required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, County made a good faith attempt to 13 [| meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the pleading deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Despite 14 || these efforts, Plaintiffs’ failed to respond to County’s meet and confer attempts. (See Declaration of 15 || Nicholas J. Caplin filed concurrently, 2, Exhibit A.) 16 This demurrer is based upon this notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 17 || the Declaration of Nicholas J. Caplin and exhibits attached thereto, all matters of which the Court 18 [| may or shall take judicial notice, the documents and pleadings on file with this Court, and any other 19 || evidence that may be received by the Court at the hearing on this matter. 20 21 22 || DATED: January 4, 2018 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR +STEWART LLP 23 24 By . 25 NICHOLAS J. CAPLIN MICHAEL L. WRONIAK 26 ATTORNEYS FOR COUNTY OF ORANGE 27 28 Mair + Stovart up || 20873 Zamon one 2 Prove (13023100 COUNTY’S DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT eo 0 N S nt A W N N N N O N N N N N N e e m m em pm p m em N O n t RA W N = O NN S N R W N = O 28 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION On November 6, 2016, Plaintiffs Pamela and Grace Lacey (collectively “Plaintiffs”) were northbound on Willow Canyon Trail in the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park when Defendant Luis Galindo (“Mr. Galindo”) struck Pamela Lacey while riding his bike. In a blatant attempt to scour pockets larger than the average individual’s, Plaintiffs have inappropriately construed the hiking trail as the cause of the incident and have brought three causes of action against Defendant County of Orange (“County”): (1) Dangerous Condition of Public Property; (2) Negligence; and (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. Each of these causes of action fails for the same reason: County is immune to suit based on the facts surrounding the alleged incident. As established by the coordinates provided by Plaintiffs, 33°35°22.7”N, 117 °46°13.9”W, the events occurred on Willow Canyon Trail, an unpaved hiking trail in the Laguna Coast Wilderness park. Despite Plaintiffs’ labeling of the location as “THE ROAD,” a simple GPS location search via Google conclusively establishes that the incident occurred on Willow Canyon Trail, and as such, that the County is entitled to trail immunity. II. THE FACTS AS PLED On November 6, 2016, Plaintiffs’ were hiking northbound on Willow Canyon Trail in Laguna Coast Wilderness Park. (Complaint at 5-6). Plaintiffs’ specifically identify the approximate location of the incident as 33°35°22.7”N, 117 °46°13.9”W, which establishes that it occurred on Willow Canyon Trail. (Id. at 5). During the hike, Defendant Luis Galindo (“Mr. Galindo”) allegedly approached on a bicycle in the opposite direction from an allegedly blind turn. (Id. at 6). Mr. Galindo allegedly collided with Plaintiff Pamela Lacey, causing her severe injuries. (Id). All of Plaintiffs’ causes of action against the County are sourced from the allegedly dangerous condition of the trail, and as such, the County is entitled to immunity from this suit. 1" 1" 20873 3 COUNTY’S DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT eo 0 N S nt A W N N N N O N N N N N N e e m m em pm p m em N O n t RA W N = O NN S N R W N = O 28 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 IIL. AUTHORITY FOR DEMURRER When any ground for objection to a complaint appears on the face thereof, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.30(a)). The party against whom a complaint has been filed may object by demurrer when the pleading does not state facts sufficient to support a cause of action. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e)). In considering the sufficiency of the allegations, courts consider the demurrer as admitting all properly pleaded material facts, “but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Align Technology, Inc. v. Bao Tran (2009) 179 Cal. App.4th 949, 958 (emphasis added)). Moreover, when a complaint is successfully challenged by a demurrer, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate how the complaint might be amended to cure it of the defect. (Assoc. of Community Orgs. For Reform Now v. Dept. of Indus. Rel. (1995) 41 Cal. App.4th 298, 302). A court should sustain a demurrer if the complaint, liberally construed, fails to state a cause of action under any theory. (Kiseskey v. Carpenters’ Trust for So. California (1983) 144 Cal. App.3d 222, 228). IV. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT ESTABLISHES THAT THE COUNTY IS AFFORDED TRAIL IMMUNITY AND THEREFORE FAILS TO STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION Here, when all of Plaintiffs’ factual allegations are taken as true, it is clear that the County is entitled to immunity, and that this demurrer should be sustained. Government Code section 831.4 subdivisions (a) and (b) provide that: “[a] public entity ... is not liable for an injury caused by a condition of: (a) Any unpaved road which provides access to fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, riding, including animal and all types of vehicular riding, water sports, recreational or scenic areas and which is not a(l) city street or highway or (2) county, state or federal highway or (3) public street or highway of a joint highway district, boulevard district, bridge and highway district or similar district formed for the improvement or building of public streets or highways” or “(b) Any trail used for the above purposes.” 20873 4 COUNTY’S DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT eo 0 N S nt A W N N N N O N N N N N N e e m m em pm p m em N O n t RA W N = O NN S N R W N = O 28 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 This immunity is afforded to encourage public entities to open their property for public recreational use, because “the burden and expense of putting such property in a safe condition and the expense of defending claims for injuries would probably cause many public entities to close such areas to public use.” (Armenio v. County of San Mateo (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 413, 417). The trail immunity provided in subdivision (b) of the statute extends to trails that are used for the activities listed in subdivision (a), and to trails that are used solely for access to such activities. (Treweek v. City of Napa (2000) 85 Cal. App.4th 221, 224-229). Additionally, the immunity applies whether or not the trail is paved. (Armenio, supra, 28 Cal. App.4th at p. 418). Here, Plaintiffs’ have pled all facts necessary to establish that trail immunity is applicable. The fact that Plaintiffs have provided coordinates, as opposed to street names, is an extremely telling fact in and of itself. If the accident had occurred on a public roadway, or another location on which the County would not be absolutely immune, it is likely that Plaintiffs would have identified the location by means other than coordinates. Plaintiffs have admitted that the coordinates of the location are approximately 33°35°22.7”N, 117 °46°13.9”W. This establishes that Plaintiffs were walking on Willow Canyon Trail. (Request for Judicial Notice; Declaration of Nicholas J. Caplin (“Caplin Decl.) at 5-6, Exhibits B and C). When input on any GPS-coordinate locator (such as Google Maps), the location is identified as such. Additionally, a Google search of the coordinates, demonstrate that the location is an unpaved hiking trail. (Request for Judicial Notice; Caplin Decl. at 95, Exhibits B-D). Finally, the OC Parks map of the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park clearly designates that Willow Canyon Trail is a hiking trail. (Caplin Decl. at {7 Exhibit E). Thus, by providing these coordinates, Plaintiffs have given the Court everything it needs to conclusively dispose of this matter. Because the alleged injuries occurred at Willow Canyon Trail, an unpaved hiking trail within the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park, the County is entitled to trail immunity pursuant to section 831.4. Designating the location as “THE ROAD” does nothing to change the fact that Willow Canyon Trail is an unpaved hiking trail in the Laguna Coast Wilderness. (See Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont, 143 Cal. App. 4th 1074 (1st Dist. 2006) (holding that calling the incident location a “sidewalk” did not detract from the fact that the incident occurred on a trail that fit within the 20873 5 COUNTY’S DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT eo 0 N S nt A W N N N N O N N N N N N e e m m em pm p m em N O n t RA W N = O NN S N R W N = O 28 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 definition articulated in Government Code section 831.4)). Here, as in Amberger-Warren, Plaintiffs’ classification of the location as THE ROAD does not counteract the fact that Plaintiffs were hiking on Willow Canyon Trail, a hiking trail in the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park. Further, section 831.4 specifically uses the language “unpaved road” further reinforcing the notion that the immunity is applicable regardless of Plaintiffs’ characterization. Thus, Government Code section 831.4 is controlling, and the County respectfully requests that this Court sustain this demurrer without leave to amend. V. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs’ Complaint conclusively establishes that the County is entitled to immunity for all of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. Therefore, County respectfully requests this Court sustain the Demurrer to Plaintiff’s first, second, and fourth causes of action without leave to amend. DATED: January 4, 2018 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR +STEWART LLP o (Tul CHOLAS J. CAPLIN MICHAEL L. WRONIAK ATTORNEYS FOR COUNTY OF ORANGE 20873 6 COUNTY’S DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT eo 0 N S nt A W N N N N O N N N N N N e e m m em pm p m em N O n t RA W N = O NN S N R W N = O 28 Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP 750 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868-4940 Phone (714) 823-4100 Fax (714) 823-4101 PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) State of California, ) ) ss. County of Orange. ) I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 750 The City Drive, Suite 400, Orange, California 92868. On this date, I served the foregoing document described as COUNTY OF ORANGE’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by placing same in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: Brian J. McCormack, Esq. Sarah C. Serpa, Esq. CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth FI. Santa Ana, CA 92707 (714) 241-4444; Fax: (714) 241-4445 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, PAMELA LACEY and GRACE LACEY