Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 22STCV33251, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV33251 Hearing Date: August 6, 2024 Dept: V
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOSANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT V
LACHICA OUSLEY, an individual, ANGELIQUE JOHNSONOUSLEY, an individual, Plaintiffs, vs. HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS / SUED HOLLYWOOD STAY LLC HOTEL; SHERRI HOODWORTH,
Defendants.
Case No.: 22STCV33251
Hearing Date: August 6, 2024
Time: 9:00 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT HOLLYWOOD STAY HOTEL, LLC’S DEMURRER TOPLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTIES: Defendant HOLLYWOOD STAY HOTEL,LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed
The court considered the moving papers.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Lachica Ousley (Ousley) and AngeliqueJohnson Ousley (collectively, plaintiffs) filed the complaint againstdefendants Hollywood Stay Hotel, LLC (Hollywood Stay), erroneously sued andserved as Holiday Inn Express Hotel, and Sherri Hoodworth (collectively,defendants) on October 11, 2022. This case arises out of injuries sustained atdefendants’ hotel, potentially from a treadmill.
On July 7, 2023, the court sustained HollywoodStay’s demurrer with leave to amend. The court found that Plaintiff’s complaintdid not sufficiently identify any cognizable causes of action to whichdefendants could reply. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (FAC) was rejectedby the court for failure to include a case number. Plaintiffs sought leave ofthe court to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC). On February 2, 2024, thecourt sustained defendants’ demurrer to the SAC with 20 days leave to amend.The court found that the SAC does not cure the defects of plaintiffs’ complaintbecause the pleadings were still uncertain.
Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint(TAC) on February 5, 2024. Hollywood Stay demurred to the TAC on April 23,2024. No opposition has been filed.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Hollywood Stay requests the court to takejudicial notice of the Third Amended Complaint. The court takes judicial noticeof the TAC pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d).
LEGAL STANDARD
A party may object to a complaint orcross-complaint; the party may file a demurrer, an answer, or both. (Code ofCiv. Proc., § 430.30.) The demurrer may be filed within 30 days after serviceof the complaint or cross-complaint unless extended by stipulation or courtorder. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.40(a).)
As a general matter, in a demurrer proceeding,the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicialnotice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “Ademurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.”(E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) Assuch, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded orimplied factual allegations. (Id.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned withis whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v.Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)
DISCUSSION
A. Meet and Confer
Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a)requires that the moving party meet and confer with the party who filed thepleading that is subject to the demurrer. Hollywood Stay met and conferred withplaintiff via email on March 1, 2024, and telephone call on March 4, 2024.(Decl. of Danica J. Brustkern, ¶ 6; Exh. B.) Accordingly, this requirement hasbeen met.
B. Demurrer
The court finds that the TAC does not cure thedefects of the SAC because the pleadings are still uncertain. Uncertainty isdefined as ambiguous and unintelligible by Code of Civil Procedure section430.10. A demurrer for uncertainty should be granted “if the pleading is soincomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J. FistesCorp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.)
The TAC is a handwritten form complaint with anadditional two handwritten pleading pages a lot of which is unintelligible andambiguous.
The first page includes handwriting that isdifficult to read and make sense of. The court gleans that Plaintiffs “want torecover compensation for being in pain cause of actions”. Plaintiffs allege“defendants held liable [for a] physical injury claim.” Other than that, whatis understandable are the following words and phrases, “the essential elementsto pleading a cause of injury”, “bad faith dangerous condition of property”,“punitive damages”, “a claim for liability condition of property”, and“10,000,000 million under California law”. This section does not provideallegations that defendant can reasonably respond to.
The second page provides little additionalinformation besides the address of the Holiday Inn Express in Burbank and thatinjury to person or damage to personal property occurred in the jurisdictionalarea of the court.
On the third page, plaintiffs indicated thatattachments for general negligence and premises liability causes of actionswould be attached to the complaint. Plaintiffs also allege they suffered wageloss; general damages awarded for losses that are not easily quantifiable forexample pain and suffering, physical pain, emotional distress, and mentalanguish that the injured has suffered; and burns to shoulder rotator rightshoulder. Plaintiffs also pray for punitive damages “defendant for outrageousconduct similar to which formed the basis of the lawsuit”. While plaintiffsalleged two distinct causes of action, general negligence and premisesliability, plaintiffs fail to plead these causes of action with certainty inthe rest of the TAC, as discussed below.
On the fourth and fifth pages, plaintiffs list thefollowing: negligence, emotional distress, physical torts, fraud and negligentmisrepresentation, chapter 6 product’s liability, and chapter 9 real propertytorts. Plaintiffs also include the following phrases: “what legally makes aproduct”; “what is the cause of action for product defect?”; “product liabilityis a doctrine that gives plaintiffs a consumer item this doctrine can fallunder liability, meaning that defendants can be held liable regardless of theirintent or knowledge”; and when the plaintiff proves that the product has acondition that makes it unsafe for other human beings.” These phrases are atmost attempts at correct statements of law.
On the last two pages, from what the court canunderstand, plaintiffs allege that they are “suing the hotel premises fornegligently not maintaining an equipment on the property.” Plaintiffs allegethat in the state of California owners have a legal duty to maintain safeproperty conditions while adequately warning guests and visitors of hazard.Plaintiffs allege that premises liability include, among others, accidentsresulting from property conditions like the case she is filing. Here,plaintiffs state plaintiffs include an adult and a minor child. Again, at most,plaintiffs are providing the applicable law for premises liability.
Plaintiffs also allege that they have all medical records, dates and picturesand video. Plaintiffs allege that the hotel did not call the ambulance whenthey ran to the front desk yelling, crying with severe bad injuries and burns.Plaintiffs allege that when they ran to the front desk crying and begging for help,they were given a first aid kit and told to go back to their room. Plaintiffsallege a yellow cab was called to the hotel with some papers printed out withan urgent care address the hotel referred them to. Plaintiffs allege they aretraumatized. Plaintiffs allege they have video with the treadmill liftedup in the air from the back that would not stop running and Ousley fallingforward and her two-year old daughter stuck underneath it.
Here, despite plaintiffs attempts to relate theevents underlying the cause of action and listing causes of action, the TAC isstill uncertain because large portions of it are unintelligible, Plaintiffsprovide ambiguous details of what occurred on the premises and allege nothingbeyond an accident at the hotel that involved a treadmill, Ousley and herdaughter, and injuries and burns. Because the TAC is uncertain, defendantcannot reasonably respond to the TAC. This is the fourth attempt by plaintiff tocure the defects, and plaintiff has not opposed the demurrer. Although it isthe rare case that the court will not grant leave to amend, the court finds itis appropriate to deny leave to amend here where plaintiffs have made fourattempts to state a claim, have not filed responsive pleadings and have notasked for leave to amend.
Based on theforegoing, the court sustains defendant Hollywood Stay Hotel, LLC’s demurrer tothe Third Amended Complaint, and grants its motion to dismiss.
