Order: Sz Huang et al vs Tesla Inc. et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                an   ans         teed Wal



                                                                                                                  ay



                                                                                                     FEB 1 1 2020
                                                                                            Clerk,     of the Cour}
                                                                                      Superior C            County
                                                                                                               of Santa Clara
                               SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA                         BY.                                DEPUTY
                                                                                                       (\osales
                                     COUNTY    OF SANTA CLARA

10
11   SZ HUA HUANG et al.,                                 Case No.    19CV346663
12                            Plaintiffs,
13                                                        ORDER CONCERNING STATE OF
     Vv.                                                  CALIFORNIA’S DEMURRER
14
     TESLA INC. et al.,
15
16                            Defendants.

17
18

19           In this action, the State of California, one of the named defendants, demurs to the
20   complaint filed by plaintiffs. The State claims that the complaint is ambiguous in that it’s not
21   clear which state entity is alleged to have created the alleged “dangerous condition of public

22   property” that underlies plaintiffs’ two remaining claims against the State.'
23            Granted, three different State agencies are discussed in the complaint:         Caltrans, the
24   California Highway Patrol (“CHP”), and the California Transportation Commission (“CTC”).
25   But it is not required that plaintiffs sue each of those entities; it’s perfectly permissible to sue the
26    State as a whole.   And that’s what plaintiffs did: the only named public defendant in the
27    complaint is the State (not Caltrans, as the State erroneously claims). To the extent it is unclear
28
      ' These are the fourth and sixth causes of action; plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the fifth cause
      of action.
which State agency may be ultimately responsible (and have to pay damages, if any eventually

     are assessed), discovery can clear that up. The Court otherwise believes the “dangerous

     condition of public property” claims against the State are pled adequately and not ambiguous.

             The State also states that the “CHP and CTC Have Been Misjoined in this Action.”
     (Reply, at p. 2.) But that misreads the complaint.   As stated above, the only public entity named

     as a defendant is the State as a whole. The Court sees no misjoinder.
             Finally, both sides talk about potential discovery gamesmanship that might occur down
     the road.   Discovery issues are not before the Court at this time, so the Court will not opine on




                                                           (~~
     them.
10
11

12                                                          The Honorable Sunil R. Kulkarni
13                                                          Judge of the Superior Court

14
15
16
17
18

19

20
21
22
23
24

25
26
27
28
Be       a                     SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
                                            COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA                                               te