ELBA VAZQUEZ ET AL VS. DAVE'S BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24618908 - December 1, 2025 Hearing date: December 1, 2025 Case number: CGC24618908 Case title: ELBA VAZQUEZ ET AL VS. DAVE'S BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24618908 | Case Title: | | ELBA VAZQUEZ ET AL VS. DAVE'S BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-01 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEFENDANT DAVE'S BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. AMENDED DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION (ADDED TO CALENDAR FOR TENTATIVE RULING ENTRY PURPOSES ONLY) | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Monday, December 1, 2025, Line 5, DEFENDANT DAVE'S BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. AMENDED DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION (ADDED TO CALENDAR FOR TENTATIVE RULING ENTRY PURPOSES ONLY) (Part 2 of 2) (Tentative ruling continues from previous entry)

Here, DBM has not demonstrated that YSL has failed to allege a claim upon which relief can be granted. Unlike every case mentioned by DBM, this is a case where worker's compensation benefits have already been provided to the injured party and the question is whether a third party is also liable.

In a nutshell, Vazquez claims the negligence of third parties DBM and DBM employee Enrique contributed to her injuries and, thus, DBM is liable; YSL claims, as well, that the negligence of third parties DBM and DBM employee Enrique contributed to Vazquez injuries and DBM's liability means DBM should reimburse YSL for some or all worker's compensation losses. YSL's subrogation claim is clearly authorized under the Labor Code.

DBM's contention seems to be that Enrique was a YSL employee, whether by way of a presumption or as a matter of law, and therefore DBM cannot be liable for the incident at all. Vazquez alleges Enrique was a DBM, not YSL, employee and the court must presume the allegation true. Further, the allegations do not prompt an inference-let alone a conclusive finding-Enrique was a YSL employee; simply mopping stairs in YSL's "space" does not make Enrique necessarily or presumptively a YSL employee. For purpose of the demurrer, Enrique was a DBM employee and YSL's complaint in intervention survives.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.