ADRIENNE MICHELLE GARCIA, ET AL. V. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.

(Norwalk Courthouse: Dept. D) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT D LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

ET AL. V. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL. CASE NO.: 25NWCV04324 HEARING: 08/26/26 @ 9:30 a.m. #13 TENTATIVE ORDER The Demurrer filed by Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC is SUSTAINED with 20 days' leave to amend. Moving party to give notice. Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC demur to the Complaint on the basis that Plaintiffs fail to allege facts sufficient to constitute a viable cause of action against them.

Background

On December 5, 2025, Plaintiffs Adrienne Michelle Garcia ("Adrienne") and Anissa Nicole Garcia ("Anissa") filed the instant action against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber"), Rasier, LLC ("Rasier"), Rasier-CA, LLC ("Rasier-CA"), Doe 1 (UberEats Driver), and Does 2 to 10 asserting claims for (1) general negligence, (2) assault, (3) battery, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs allege that they were assaulted by an employee and/or agent of UberEats who was delivering an order at or near their residence. On July 23, 2026, moving defendants Uber, Rasier, and Raiser-CA ("Defendants") filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint ("Demurrer"). On July 30, 2026, Plaintiffs amended the Complaint to add Nicole Rodriguez as Doe 1 (UberEats Driver) ("Rodriguez"). The Court dismissed Doe 1 (UberEats Driver) without prejudice on August 20, 2026.

Legal Standard

A demurrer is a pleading that may be used to test the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.430.10.) There are two types of demurrers: general demurrers and special demurrers. (See McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 77.) General demurrers can be used to attack pleadings for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.430.10, subd. (e); McKenney, 167 Cal.App.4th at 77.) Such demurrers can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable; evidence or extrinsic matters are not considered. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 430.30, 430.70; Blank v. Kirwan (1985)

39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the Court admits "all material facts properly pleaded" and "matters which may be judicially noticed," but does not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Blank, 39 Cal.3d at 318.) It gives these facts "a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context." (Ibid.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v.

Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) The face of the complaint includes exhibits attached to the complaint. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.) "If facts appearing in the exhibits contradict those alleged, the facts in the exhibits take precedence." (Holland v. Morse Diesel Internat., Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447.) Special demurrers can be used to attack the pleadings on grounds that the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.10, subd. (f).)

A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the pleading is so unclear that the responding party cannot reasonably determine what issues to admit or deny or what counts and claims are directed toward the responding party. (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) A special demurrer may also be used as a means to challenge the complainant's legal capacity to sue. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.430.10, subd. (b).) Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that "[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec.430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration stating either (1) the means by which the parties met and conferred and that the parties did not reach an agreement to resolve the issues raised in the demurrer or (2) the party that filed the pleading failed to respond to the meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith. (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec.430.41, subd. (a)(3).) When a demurrer is sustained, the Court determines whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) When a plaintiff "has pleaded the general set of facts upon which his cause of action is based," the court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint, since plaintiff should not "be deprived of his right to maintain his action on the ground that his pleadings were defective for lack of particulars." (Reed v.

Norman

(1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 892, 900.) Generally, the court will allow leave to amend on at least the first try, unless there is absolutely no possibility of overcoming the issue. (See Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227 ("Denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the complaint shows on its face it is incapable of amendment. [Citation.] Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given.").)

Analysis

Meet and Confer Requirement Defendants' counsel declares that, on May 27, 2026, he served a meet and confer letter on Plaintiffs' counsel outlining the deficiencies in the Complaint. (Declaration of Damion M. Young, P.3, Ex. A.) On June 3, 2026, the parties held a telephonic conference but were unable to resolve the issues raised by Defendants. (Id. at P.4.) The Court finds that Defendants have satisfied the meet and confer requirement. Demurrer to First Cause of Action for Negligence Defendants argue that the first cause of action for general negligence fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a viable cause of action against Uber, Rasier, and Rasier-CA.

Specifically, Plaintiffs fail to allege that Defendants owed a duty to control the delivery driver from assaulting members of the public or that Defendants' negligence caused Plaintiffs' harms. "To establish a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff must show that the 'defendant had a duty to use due care, that he breached that duty, and that the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.'" (Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal. 5th 204, 213). "Recovery for negligence depends as a threshold matter on the existence of a legal duty of care." (Ibid.) "Whether a duty exists is a question of law to be resolved by the court." (Ibid.; see Regents v.

University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 608, 620 ["The determination whether a particular relationship supports a duty of care rests on policy and is a question of law."].) The elements of a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision are: (1) the employer's hiring, retaining, or supervising an employee; (2) the employee was incompetent or unfit; (3) the employer had reason to believe undue risk of harm would exist because of the employment; and (4) harm occurs. (Evan F. v.

Hughson United Methodist Church (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 828, 836-837.) Defendants argue that the general negligence claim is insufficient because Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient allegations that Defendants owed Plaintiffs a pertinent duty of care. However, the first claim for general negligence appears to be limited to "Doe 1 (UberEats Driver) and Does 2-10). (Complaint, p. 4.) The second claim for general

negligence appears to center on a cause of action for "Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training, and Supervision" and be directed at Defendants. (Complaint, p. 5.) According to the allegations listed under this cause of action, on December 5, 2024, "one or more of Defendants' employee's and/or agents assaulted them after the employee and/or agent was delivering an UberEats order at or near Plaintiffs' residence, thus causing severe bodily and emotional damages to Plaintiffs." (Complaint, p. 5.) Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants "owed a duty to hire competent drivers, to perform appropriate background checks, to monitor performance, and to remove unsafe individuals." (Ibid.) "Defendants breached these duties by allowing an unfit, violent, dangerous driver to accept delivery assignments, failing to properly screen, train, supervise, suspend, or remove her, and failing to ensure that its contractors would not commit violence against the public.

As a proximate result, Plaintiffs were assaulted and battered by the UberEats driver, sustaining physical injuries and emotional distress." (Ibid.) The Court finds that these allegations are sufficient to show that Defendants hired, retained, or supervised an UberEats delivery driver and the employee may have been incompetent or unfit. However, the Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts establishing that Defendants knew or had reason to know about the employee's propensity to commit violent acts.

The Court finds that there is a reasonable possibility that amendment may cure these defects, accordingly, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend to provide Plaintiffs an opportunity to allege sufficient facts to constitute a negligence cause of action and to clarify which negligence claims pertain to Defendants. Demurrer to Second Cause of Action for Intentional Tort Defendants argue that the second cause of action for intentional tort fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a viable cause of action against Uber, Rasier, and Rasier-CA.

Specifically, Rodriguez's conduct is outside the scope of her purported employment as a matter of law as it was "startling and unusual" considering her alleged employment duties. Plaintiffs assert three intentional tort causes of action against Defendants: (1) assault, (2) battery, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. It appears that the assault and battery causes of action are limited to Doe 1 (UberEats Driver) and Does 2-10. (Complaint, pp. 6, 7). The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is brought against all Defendants. (Id. at p. 8.) "The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct.

Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community." (Wilson v. Hynek (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 999, 1009, citation and ellipses omitted.)

"Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, 'an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees committed within the scope of the employment.' [Citation.]" (Montague v. AMN Healthcare, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1515, 1520.) "Although an employee's willful, malicious, and even criminal torts may fall within the scope of employment, 'an employer is not strictly liable for all actions of its employees during working hours.' [Citation.] For the employer to be liable for an intentional tort, the employee's act must have a 'causal nexus to the employee's work.' [Citation.]" (Id. at 1521.)

Specifically, "[t]he conduct of an employee falls within the scope of his or her employment if the conduct either (1) is required by or incidental to the employee's duties, or (2) it is reasonably foreseeable in light of the employer's business." (Ibid., citations omitted.) The Court does not find any allegations of "extreme and outrageous conduct" by Defendants. Moreover, the allegations are not sufficient to demonstrate that Defendants are vicariously liable for the delivery driver's violent conduct because the alleged assault (1) was required by or incidental to the employee's duties or (2) reasonably foreseeable in light of the food delivery business.

The Court finds that there is a reasonable possibility that amendment may cure these defects. Accordingly, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend to provide Plaintiffs an opportunity to clarify which intentional tort causes of action are asserted against Defendants and to provide additional factual allegations to support those causes of action.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC's Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days' leave to amend. | Home -->)" -->