Rohs Properties, LLC v. Humberto Lule and Maris Murillo

and Second Causes of Action: Battery and Negligence The demurrer to the battery and negligence causes of action is overruled. Universal argues that Plaintiff fails to plead these claims because he does not sufficiently allege that the officers acted within the course and scope of their employment. Plaintiff alleges that Universal deployed the officers at the station and that they "were employees, and acted in the course and scope of their employment" with Universal. [Compl. P.P. 3, 17.] These allegations are sufficient to plead an employment relationship and acts within the scope of employment. (Garton v.

Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 365, 376.) This is true even if the officers acted "intentionally and with the intent to harm," as the alleged attack was an "outgrowth" of their security work. (Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 297-98.) The demurrer to these claims is therefore overruled.

Third Cause of Action: Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervision The demurrer to the negligent hiring claim is also overruled. Universal contends that this claim fails because Plaintiff does not allege that Universal knew or should have known that the officers were unfit or incompetent and that this caused a particular risk to others. But Plaintiff alleges that Universal knew or should have known that the officers were "incompetent and unfit," and particularly that they were "dangerous and violent employees, prone to use excessive force without reasonable justification." [Compl.

P.P. 44, 49.] That Plaintiff does not allege the specific manner in which Universal gained such knowledge or the extent of its knowledge does not defeat his claim because Universal presumably has superior knowledge of these facts and they can be ascertained through discovery. (See Thomas v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 587, 611.) The demurrer to this claim is thus overruled. Universal to answer the operative complaint within 10 days. Universal to give notice.

617 Date: 8-27-26 Case #: 26STCV14281 Trial Date: 9-14-26 LEAVE TO AMEND MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Maris Murillo RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Rohs Properties, LLC RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Leave to Amend Answer SUMMARY OF ACTION On May 5, 2026, Plaintiff Rohs Properties, LLC filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Humberto Lule and Maris Murillo. Murillo filed an answer on May 19, 2026 and an amended answer on May 29, 2026. Default was entered against Lule on June 9, 2026.

RULING: Granted. Murillo moves for leave to file a Second Amended Answer adding additional defenses not raised in her First Amended Answer, filed in pro per. The basis for the amendment is the subsequent retainment of counsel which revealed the necessity of asserting the defenses. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that amendment prejudices it. Murillo's motion is granted.

A motion for leave to amend must comply with the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, which states as follows: (a) Contents of motion A motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. (b) Supporting declaration A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (1) The effect of the amendment; (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Dilatory delays and prejudice to the opposing parties is a valid ground for denial. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-88.) Leave to amend is generally liberally granted. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (a); Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296.)

The Court will not generally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave, instead deferring such determinations for a demurrer or motion to strike, unless the proposed amendment fails to state a valid claim as a matter of law. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal. App.3d 1045, 1048; California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-81 disapproved of on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins.

Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)

Murillo is granted leave to amend. The proposed defenses are within the limited scope and summary character of unlawful detainer actions. (See Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 255.) Plaintiff claims that it will be prejudiced by amendment due to increased expense and the "risk that potential discovery on these new claims will delay trial even further." [Opp. at p. 4.] But Plaintiff does not explain what additional discovery will be needed and why it cannot be completed before the 5-day cut-off. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2024.040, subd. (b)(1).) In light of the absence of articulated prejudice to Plaintiff, Murillo's motion is granted. Murillo to file a separate copy of the Second Amended Answer within 3 days of the order. September 14, 2026 trial date to stand. Murillo to give notice. | Home -->)" -->