N.J. a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Melvin L. Friedland, v. County of San Bernardino, et. al.

General Demurrer

All that is necessary as against a general demurrer is to plead facts showing that the plaintiff may be entitled to some relief. In passing upon the sufficiency of a pleading, its allegations must be liberally construed with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Fundin v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 951, 955; Michaelian v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1104-1105.)

A demurrer for failure to state a cause of action should be sustained only where the facts alleged on the face of the complaint fail to state any valid claim entitling the plaintiff to relief. The plaintiff may be mistaken as to the nature of the case or the legal theory on which he or she can prevail, but if the essential facts of some valid cause of action are alleged, the complaint is good against a general demurrer. (Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 566, 572.)

Page | 9

Special Demurrer

A complaint may also be challenged on demurrer for uncertainty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) Demurrers for uncertainty are not favored, and this challenge is generally sustained only where the complaint is so ambiguous or unintelligible the defendant cannot reasonably respond. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

A special demurrer for uncertainty lies only where the complaint is so poorly drafted that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. That is, the defendant cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied or what claims are asserted against him. (Ibid.) (Internal citations omitted.)

Where it is alleged that a pleading is uncertain, the movant must specify how or why the pleading is uncertain, and where such uncertainty appears in the face of the pleading under attack. (Fenton v. Groveland Comm. Services Dist. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 797, 809 [overruled on other grounds in Katzberg v. Regents of the University of California (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300, 328].)

Leave to Amend

Generally, it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) "Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule; if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given.” (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.)

This does not mean that leave to amend should always be granted. “Leave to amend should be denied where the facts are not in dispute and the nature of the claim is clear, but no liability exists under substantive law.” (Lawrence v. Bank of America (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 431, 436.)

Analysis

First Cause of Action – Equitable Indemnity

It is well-settled in California that equitable indemnity is only available among tortfeasors who are jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's injury. (Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1115, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 858; Munoz v. Davis (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 420, 425, 190 Cal.Rptr. 400.)

With limited exception, there must be some basis for tort liability against the proposed indemnitor. (Munoz v. Davis, supra, 141 Cal.App.3d at p. 425, 190 Cal.Rptr. 400.) “Generally, it is based on a duty owed to the underlying plaintiff [citations], although vicarious liability [citation] and strict liability [citation] also may sustain application of equitable indemnity. In addition, implied contractual indemnity between the indemnitor and the indemnitee can provide a basis for equitable indemnity. [Citation.]” (BFGC Architects Planners, Inc. v. Forcum/Mackey Construction, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 848, 852, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 721.)2

Stop Loss Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. Brown & Toland Med. Grp., (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1040–41.

Page | 10

Here, the Cross Complaint at issue fails to states the duties owed by the parties at issue and a clearer statement on the face of the Cross Complaint as to basis of tort liability against the proposed indemnitor. Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer with leave to amend. As the Court has sustained the demurrer on the failure to state sufficient facts to support a cause of action, the Court will not address Cross Defendant’s other arguments as to the First Cause of Action.

Second Cause of Action for Equitable Contribution

Cross-Complainants’ equitable contribution claim alleges they are entitled to a pro rata contribution from Cross-Defendants. Code of Civil Procedure section 875, subdivision (a), states: “[w]here a money judgment has been rendered jointly against two or more defendants in a tort action there shall be a right of contribution among them as hereinafter provided.”

Case law is clear that this statute is conditional; a money judgment rendered jointly against two or more defendants must exist before either may assert a right to contribution from the other. (General Electric Co. v. State of Cal. Ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 918, 925 (General Electric).) If the condition of the statute has not been met, the cross-complaint states no cause of action for contribution. (General Electric, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d at p. 926.)

Cross-Complainants have not alleged that a money judgment has been rendered against themselves and other Cross-Defendants. As such, they have not stated a claim for equitable contribution. Given that this case is still proceeding and no judgment has yet issued, it is not possible for Cross-Complainants to amend their pleading to allege the necessary element of a money judgment. Therefore, leave to amend would be futile. Therefore, the Court sustains demurrer to the third cause of action for equitable contribution without leave to amend.

Third Cause of Action – Declaratory Relief

The purpose of declaratory relief is to set controversies at rest before they lead to repudiation of obligations, invasion of rights or commission of wrongs. (Env’t Def. Project of Sierra Cnty. v. Cnty. of Sierra (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 877, 884 (Sierra Cnty.).)

To qualify for declaratory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060, two essential elements are necessary: 1) a proper subject of declaratory relief and 2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party. (Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 546 (Lee).) The “actual controversy” language encompasses a probable future controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties. (Lee, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 546.)

“One cannot analyze requested declaratory relief without evaluating the nature of the rights and duties that plaintiff is asserting, which must follow some recognized or cognizable legal theories that are related to subjects and requests for relief that are properly before the court.” (D. Cummins Corp. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489 (D. Cummins).)

A claim for declaratory relief must provide specific facts, as opposed to conclusions of law, which show a controversy of concrete actuality. (Jessin v. Shasta County (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 737, 743-744; Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 514, disapproved on other grounds by Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919, 939.) In the context of a demurrer, the court will evaluate whether the factual allegations of the complaint for declaratory relief reveal that an actual controversy exists between the parties. (D. Cummins, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1489.)

Page | 11

Fundamentally, it is unclear what rights and duties Cross-Complainants are raising with respect to itself and Cross Defendants, and there are no specific facts alleged showing a proper subject of declaratory relief and an actual controversy. Cross-Complainants have not pleaded the necessary elements to state a claim for declaratory relief. Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer to the third cause of action for declaratory relief with leave to amend.

Fourth Cause of Action for Negligence

For a claim of negligence, the plaintiff must prove (1) legal duty, (2) breach of the legal duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)

An employer may be liable for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and/or training if he knows or should know an employee is unfit, and because of the unfitness, the employee creates a risk with that risk materializing. (Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1054.)

The Cross Complaint fails to state any elements in order show a cause of action for negligence; therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer to the fourth cause of action.

RULING

The Court rules as follows:

1. Sustains the demurrer to the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of action with leave to amend;

2. Orders Plaintiff to file the First Amended Cross Complaint within 14 days of the Court’s final ruling; and

3. Orders Cross Defendant Humble Homes, as the prevailing party, to give formal notice of the Court’s ruling.

Dated: April 26, 2026

____________________________ Judge Nicole Quintana Winter

Page | 12