Myron v. Fitness International LLC
Defendant Fitness International, LLC’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint
Motion type
Causes of action
Parties
Ruling
# Case Name Tentative
[plaintiff] had no real property interest in the . . .property, [defendant]’s recording of the abstract did not create a real property lien against the . . .property.”))
Jones shall give notice of this ruling.
56. Myron v. Defendant Fitness International, LLC’s Demurrer to the First Fitness Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is SUSTAINED. International Defendant demurs to the second cause of action for negligent LLC hiring, supervision and retention. 2025- “California case law recognizes the theory that an employer 01531632 can be liable to a third person for negligently hiring, supervising, or retaining an unfit employee. Liability is based upon the facts that the employer knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes.” (McKenna v. Beesley (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 552, 566.)
The FAC fails to allege the identity of any particular employee, the unfitness of said employee, what the employee did or did not do, or how the said employee’s actions caused harm to Plaintiff. (See CACI 426.)
Plaintiff has not opposed the demurrer, and therefore has not demonstrated a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by way of a further amended complaint. Therefore, the demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.
Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.
57.
58. Rogers v. The claim of exemption by plaintiff / judgment debtor / Guzman claimant William Rogers and claimant Celestina M. ("Tina") Rogers is GRANTED in part, in the amount of $16,518.00, as 2023- exempt Social Security payments. (Code Civ. Proc., § 01301897 704.080; Claim of Exemption, ¶¶ 6, 8, and Attachment 6 thereto.)
The remainder of the claims of exemption are DENIED, as claimants have not shown that the remaining levied funds are exempt. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 703.080, subd. (b), 703.580, subd. (b) [claimants’ burden].)
Judgment creditors shall give notice of this ruling.
59. Rueda v. The motion to consolidate is ordered OFF CALENDAR. SKRT
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”