Preview
1 Stephen B. Heath - 237622
sheath@heathandyuen.com Electronically Filed
2 Steven W. Yuen - 230768 Superior Court of California
syuen@heathandyuen.com County of San Joaquin
3 Lucy K. Galek - 227237 2021-04-16 13:54:15
lgalek@heathandyuen.com Clerk: Taylor Hiedeman
4 HEATH & YUEN, APC
268 Bush Street, #3006 Demurrer
5 San Francisco, CA 94104 05/25/2021 09:00 AM in 11B
Tel: (415) 622-7004
6 Fax: (415) 373-3957
7 Attorneys for Defendant
GREWAL CARGO INC
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
11 JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, AN INCOMPETENT Case No.: STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001576
ADULT, BY AND THROUGH HIS
12 GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE, DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
13 Plaintiffs, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEMURRER
14 v.
Date:
15 GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET Time:
SINGH; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 150, Dept.: 11B
16 INCLUSIVE,
Judge: Hon. Robert T. Waters
17 Defendants. File Date: February 23, 2021
Trial Date: None
18
19 I. INTRODUCTION
20 Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III (herein “plaintiff”) was an unrestrained drunk driver of a vehicle
21 not belonging to him, bearing a concealed weapon, who suddenly stopped his vehicle in the dark in an
22 unlit area freeway at freeway speed traffic, with no lights or signals on, who brings this action for the
23 injuries he caused by his own reckless and contemptible acts. Plaintiff has a long criminal and poor
24 driving history, resulting in at least 50 cases against him in San Joaquin County alone. Thus it is no
25 surprise that he presently has a warrant pending for his arrest. Because he is a fugitive from the court,
26 he is not legal entitled to seek redress from it.Defendant Grewal Cargo Inc (herein “Grewal”) thus
27 demurs to plaintiff’s complaint and all causes of action as plaintiff fails to state any cause of action and
28 is disentitled from relief. This motion is being filed concurrently with a motion to strike the complaint.
-1-
DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEMURRER
1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
2 Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III, (herein, “plaintiff”) filed his complaint on February 23, 2021,
3 alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Retention and Hiring against defendants
4 Grewal Cargo Inc. (herein, “defendant”) (Exhibit B; Request for Judicial Notice [herein, “RJN], ¶ 2.)
5 Plaintiff alleges that on January 16, 2021 an auto accident occurred between a Freightliner
6 tractor/trailer operated by defendant, and an unidentified vehicle operated by plaintiff. (Exhibit B, ¶ 5.)
7 Plaintiff has a prolific criminal case record comprising of 50 matters in San Joaquin County
8 Superior alone, many of which appear based on his consistent flouting of the traffic and safety laws of
9 this state. (Exhibit C; RJN, ¶ 3.) In one of these matters plaintiff has a bench warrant pending for
10 his arrest: People of the State of California vs. Joe Edwin Taylor III. (Sup. Ct. San Joaquin County,
11 2019, No. STK-TR-MI=2019-0050949; Exhibits D & E; RJN ¶ 4 & 5.) Another bench warrant was
12 also issued for plaintiff's arrest on March 15, 2021, which arises from the same January 16, 2021
13 collision. (RJN, ¶6; Exhibit F.)
14 The parties have met and conferred both in writing and by telephone prior to defendant Grewal
15 Cargo Inc’s filing of this motion. (Exhibit A, ¶¶ 2 & 8; Exhibit G.) A telephonic meet and confer on
16 this motion took place on April 8, 2021 with plaintiff’s counsel Daniel Torem. (Exhibit A, ¶ 2.)
17 Subsequently, e-mails were exchanged between counsel further meet and confer before the filing of
18 this motion. (Exhibit A, ¶ 9; Exhibit H.)
19 Grewal has not previously filed a demurrer or an answer in this matter. (Exhibit A, ¶¶ 9, 10.) It
20 timely files this motion. (Exhibit A, ¶ 11.)
21 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
22 A. Legal Standard for a Motion to Strike
23 The party against whom a complaint has been filed may object by demurrer to the pleading.
24 (Civ. Proc. Code § 430.10.) A defendant can file a demurrer as an initial pleading. (Civ. Proc. Code
25 § 422.10.) A demurrer is used to “test the legal sufficiency of a complaint.” (Donabedian v. Mercury
26 Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994, citations omitted.) This is accomplished by challenging
27 defects which appear on the face of the pleading under attack, or from matters outside the pleading that
28 are judicially noticeable. (Civ. Proc. Code § 430.30; Evid. Code §§ 451, 452; and Blank v. Kirwan
-2-
DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEMURRER
1 (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)
2 The court may take judicial notice of the records in the pending action, or any other court of
3 record in the United States. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) For purposes of testing the sufficiency of the cause
4 of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp.
5 Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-67, emphasis added.) “The court does not, however, assume the truth
6 of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Id. at 967.) Further, the allegations of the complaint
7 are not accepted as true if they contradict or are inconsistent with facts judicially noticed by the court.
8 “Thus, a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to demurrer when matters judicially
9 noticed render the complaint meritless.” (Del E. Webb Corp., 123 Cal.App.3d at 604.)
10 Most importantly, “[u]der the doctrine of ‘conclusiveness of pleadings,’ a pleader is bound by
11 well pleaded material allegations or by failure to deny well pleaded material allegations.” (Valerio v.
12 Andrew Youngquist Constr. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1271.)
13 B. The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine Bars Plaintiff From Seeking Redress From The
Court
14
The fugitive disentitlement doctrine dates back to 1880 in California with People v.
15
Redinger (1880) 55 Cal. 290 in which the Supreme Court dismissed an escaped defendant’s appeal. The
16
California disentitlement doctrine is frequently explained in these terms: “A party to an action cannot,
17
with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an
18
attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state.” (MacPherson v.
19
MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 277.) It prohibits a fugitive from the courts: “While such an
20
escape does not strip the case of its character as an adjudicable case or controversy, we believe it
21
disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the court for determination of his claims.” (Doe
22
v. Superior Court (Polanski) (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1406, 1408-1409, citing Molinaro v. New
23
Jersey (1970) 396 U.S. 365, 366.) This disentitlement doctrine extends to and applies to California
24
civil actions. (Ibid.; see also In re Scott’s Estate (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 590, 593-594 [“appellant has
25
willfully and purposely evaded the processes of the superior court and contumaciously defied its
26
orders. Such contempt bars him from receiving the consideration of this court. It is contrary to the
27
principles of justice to permit one who has flaunted the orders of the courts to seek judicial
28
assistance”].) This is because California also has an interest in denying those who flee from justice, in
-3-
DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEMURRER
1 any jurisdiction, access to the limited resources of its courts. (Ibid.)
2 Grewal requests the court to take judicial notice of plaintiff Mr. Taylor’s complaint. (RJN, ¶ 1;
3 Exhibit B.) Grewal further requests that the court take judicial notice that a warrant pending for
4 plaintiff Mr. Taylor’s arrest and the court’s docket indicating that the warrant is pending. (RJN, ¶¶ 3-5;
5 Exhibit B.) Grewal finally requests judicial notice that another bench warrant was also issued for his
6 arrest on March 15, 2021. (RJN, ¶6; Exhibit F.) Having thus established that a warrant is pending for
7 his arrest, Grewal has established that plaintiff is not entitled to seek redress from this court under the
8 fugitive disentitlement doctrine, which necessarily means that plaintiff fails to state a cause of action as
9 to each of the causes of action in his complaint, which he is not entitled to bring. The demurrer should
10 thus be sustained as to both causes of action for negligence and negligent retention and hiring, which
11 comprise the entire complaint.
12 C. The Court Should Not Grant Mr. Taylor Leave to Amend His Complaint
13 Generally, courts routinely grant leave to amend the complaint since “[l]iberality in permitting
14 amendment is the rule.” (Angie M. v. Super. Ct. (Hiemstra) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.) However,
15 “[l]eave to amend should be denied where the facts are not in dispute and the nature of the claim is
16 clear, but no liability exists under substantive law.” (Lawrence v. Bank of America (1985) 163
17 Cal.App.3d 431, 436-437.) Specifically, to allow plaintiff to amend the complaint would serve no
18 useful purpose if the facts, as stated in plaintiff’s original complaint, cannot give rise to a cause of
19 action. (Mercury Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (Garcia) (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1027, 1035.)
20 Mr. Taylor’s complaint is incapable of amendment. Based on his status as a fugitive, he is
21 estopped and forbidden from pursuing this action unless and until he has no warrants pending for his
22 arrest. Simply put, there are no facts supporting his causes of action, and any present amendment
23 cannot change that. Thus, leave to amend needs to be denied if requested.
24 IV. CONCLUSION
25 Based on the information stated herein and in the supporting papers, defendant Grewal Cargo
26 Inc requests that this Court grant this motion in its entirety and sustain the demurrer to plaintiff’s
27 complaint as to both causes of action without leave to amend. The case should be dismissed as plaintiff
28 is not entitled to bring a claim while a warrant is pending for his arrest.
-4-
DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEMURRER
1 DATED: April 16, 2021
HEATH & YUEN, APC
2
3
By
4 Lucy K. Galek
Attorneys for Defendant
5 GREWAL CARGO INC
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEMURRER
Preview
1 Stephen B. Heath - 237622 sheath@heathandyuen.com Electronically Filed 2 Steven W. Yuen - 230768 Superior Court of California syuen@heathandyuen.com County of San Joaquin 3 Lucy K. Galek - 227237 2021-04-16 13:54:15 lgalek@heathandyuen.com Clerk: Taylor Hiedeman 4 HEATH & YUEN, APC 268 Bush Street, #3006 Demurrer 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 05/25/2021 09:00 AM in 11B Tel: (415) 622-7004 6 Fax: (415) 373-3957 7 Attorneys for Defendant GREWAL CARGO INC 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN 11 JOE EDWIN TAYLOR III, AN INCOMPETENT Case No.: STK-CV-UAT-2021-0001576 ADULT, BY AND THROUGH HIS 12 GUARDIAN AD LITEM TELISHA L. MOORE, DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 13 Plaintiffs, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER 14 v. Date: 15 GREWAL CARGO INC.; CHARANJEET Time: SINGH; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 150, Dept.: 11B 16 INCLUSIVE, Judge: Hon. Robert T. Waters 17 Defendants. File Date: February 23, 2021 Trial Date: None 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III (herein “plaintiff”) was an unrestrained drunk driver of a vehicle 21 not belonging to him, bearing a concealed weapon, who suddenly stopped his vehicle in the dark in an 22 unlit area freeway at freeway speed traffic, with no lights or signals on, who brings this action for the 23 injuries he caused by his own reckless and contemptible acts. Plaintiff has a long criminal and poor 24 driving history, resulting in at least 50 cases against him in San Joaquin County alone. Thus it is no 25 surprise that he presently has a warrant pending for his arrest. Because he is a fugitive from the court, 26 he is not legal entitled to seek redress from it.Defendant Grewal Cargo Inc (herein “Grewal”) thus 27 demurs to plaintiff’s complaint and all causes of action as plaintiff fails to state any cause of action and 28 is disentitled from relief. This motion is being filed concurrently with a motion to strike the complaint. -1- DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER 1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 Plaintiff Joe Edwin Taylor III, (herein, “plaintiff”) filed his complaint on February 23, 2021, 3 alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Retention and Hiring against defendants 4 Grewal Cargo Inc. (herein, “defendant”) (Exhibit B; Request for Judicial Notice [herein, “RJN], ¶ 2.) 5 Plaintiff alleges that on January 16, 2021 an auto accident occurred between a Freightliner 6 tractor/trailer operated by defendant, and an unidentified vehicle operated by plaintiff. (Exhibit B, ¶ 5.) 7 Plaintiff has a prolific criminal case record comprising of 50 matters in San Joaquin County 8 Superior alone, many of which appear based on his consistent flouting of the traffic and safety laws of 9 this state. (Exhibit C; RJN, ¶ 3.) In one of these matters plaintiff has a bench warrant pending for 10 his arrest: People of the State of California vs. Joe Edwin Taylor III. (Sup. Ct. San Joaquin County, 11 2019, No. STK-TR-MI=2019-0050949; Exhibits D & E; RJN ¶ 4 & 5.) Another bench warrant was 12 also issued for plaintiff's arrest on March 15, 2021, which arises from the same January 16, 2021 13 collision. (RJN, ¶6; Exhibit F.) 14 The parties have met and conferred both in writing and by telephone prior to defendant Grewal 15 Cargo Inc’s filing of this motion. (Exhibit A, ¶¶ 2 & 8; Exhibit G.) A telephonic meet and confer on 16 this motion took place on April 8, 2021 with plaintiff’s counsel Daniel Torem. (Exhibit A, ¶ 2.) 17 Subsequently, e-mails were exchanged between counsel further meet and confer before the filing of 18 this motion. (Exhibit A, ¶ 9; Exhibit H.) 19 Grewal has not previously filed a demurrer or an answer in this matter. (Exhibit A, ¶¶ 9, 10.) It 20 timely files this motion. (Exhibit A, ¶ 11.) 21 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 22 A. Legal Standard for a Motion to Strike 23 The party against whom a complaint has been filed may object by demurrer to the pleading. 24 (Civ. Proc. Code § 430.10.) A defendant can file a demurrer as an initial pleading. (Civ. Proc. Code 25 § 422.10.) A demurrer is used to “test the legal sufficiency of a complaint.” (Donabedian v. Mercury 26 Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994, citations omitted.) This is accomplished by challenging 27 defects which appear on the face of the pleading under attack, or from matters outside the pleading that 28 are judicially noticeable. (Civ. Proc. Code § 430.30; Evid. Code §§ 451, 452; and Blank v. Kirwan -2- DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER 1 (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 2 The court may take judicial notice of the records in the pending action, or any other court of 3 record in the United States. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) For purposes of testing the sufficiency of the cause 4 of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. 5 Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-67, emphasis added.) “The court does not, however, assume the truth 6 of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Id. at 967.) Further, the allegations of the complaint 7 are not accepted as true if they contradict or are inconsistent with facts judicially noticed by the court. 8 “Thus, a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to demurrer when matters judicially 9 noticed render the complaint meritless.” (Del E. Webb Corp., 123 Cal.App.3d at 604.) 10 Most importantly, “[u]der the doctrine of ‘conclusiveness of pleadings,’ a pleader is bound by 11 well pleaded material allegations or by failure to deny well pleaded material allegations.” (Valerio v. 12 Andrew Youngquist Constr. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1271.) 13 B. The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine Bars Plaintiff From Seeking Redress From The Court 14 The fugitive disentitlement doctrine dates back to 1880 in California with People v. 15 Redinger (1880) 55 Cal. 290 in which the Supreme Court dismissed an escaped defendant’s appeal. The 16 California disentitlement doctrine is frequently explained in these terms: “A party to an action cannot, 17 with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an 18 attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state.” (MacPherson v. 19 MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 277.) It prohibits a fugitive from the courts: “While such an 20 escape does not strip the case of its character as an adjudicable case or controversy, we believe it 21 disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the court for determination of his claims.” (Doe 22 v. Superior Court (Polanski) (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1406, 1408-1409, citing Molinaro v. New 23 Jersey (1970) 396 U.S. 365, 366.) This disentitlement doctrine extends to and applies to California 24 civil actions. (Ibid.; see also In re Scott’s Estate (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 590, 593-594 [“appellant has 25 willfully and purposely evaded the processes of the superior court and contumaciously defied its 26 orders. Such contempt bars him from receiving the consideration of this court. It is contrary to the 27 principles of justice to permit one who has flaunted the orders of the courts to seek judicial 28 assistance”].) This is because California also has an interest in denying those who flee from justice, in -3- DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER 1 any jurisdiction, access to the limited resources of its courts. (Ibid.) 2 Grewal requests the court to take judicial notice of plaintiff Mr. Taylor’s complaint. (RJN, ¶ 1; 3 Exhibit B.) Grewal further requests that the court take judicial notice that a warrant pending for 4 plaintiff Mr. Taylor’s arrest and the court’s docket indicating that the warrant is pending. (RJN, ¶¶ 3-5; 5 Exhibit B.) Grewal finally requests judicial notice that another bench warrant was also issued for his 6 arrest on March 15, 2021. (RJN, ¶6; Exhibit F.) Having thus established that a warrant is pending for 7 his arrest, Grewal has established that plaintiff is not entitled to seek redress from this court under the 8 fugitive disentitlement doctrine, which necessarily means that plaintiff fails to state a cause of action as 9 to each of the causes of action in his complaint, which he is not entitled to bring. The demurrer should 10 thus be sustained as to both causes of action for negligence and negligent retention and hiring, which 11 comprise the entire complaint. 12 C. The Court Should Not Grant Mr. Taylor Leave to Amend His Complaint 13 Generally, courts routinely grant leave to amend the complaint since “[l]iberality in permitting 14 amendment is the rule.” (Angie M. v. Super. Ct. (Hiemstra) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.) However, 15 “[l]eave to amend should be denied where the facts are not in dispute and the nature of the claim is 16 clear, but no liability exists under substantive law.” (Lawrence v. Bank of America (1985) 163 17 Cal.App.3d 431, 436-437.) Specifically, to allow plaintiff to amend the complaint would serve no 18 useful purpose if the facts, as stated in plaintiff’s original complaint, cannot give rise to a cause of 19 action. (Mercury Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (Garcia) (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1027, 1035.) 20 Mr. Taylor’s complaint is incapable of amendment. Based on his status as a fugitive, he is 21 estopped and forbidden from pursuing this action unless and until he has no warrants pending for his 22 arrest. Simply put, there are no facts supporting his causes of action, and any present amendment 23 cannot change that. Thus, leave to amend needs to be denied if requested. 24 IV. CONCLUSION 25 Based on the information stated herein and in the supporting papers, defendant Grewal Cargo 26 Inc requests that this Court grant this motion in its entirety and sustain the demurrer to plaintiff’s 27 complaint as to both causes of action without leave to amend. The case should be dismissed as plaintiff 28 is not entitled to bring a claim while a warrant is pending for his arrest. -4- DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER 1 DATED: April 16, 2021 HEATH & YUEN, APC 2 3 By 4 Lucy K. Galek Attorneys for Defendant 5 GREWAL CARGO INC 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- DEFENDANT GREWAL CARGO INC’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER