LESLIE HARRIS VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Wednesday, September 10, 2025, line 11, DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC DEMURRER to COMPLAINT (tenative ruling part 1 of 2)

Defendant Uber Technologies' demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend, on the basis of both California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), section 430.10(e) [failure to state a cause of action] and (f) [uncertainty].

The issue under section CCP 430.10(e) is, taking the facts properly pleaded and properly noticed as true, does the challenged cause of action necessarily fail to state a claim for relief. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) In assessing whether the complaint states a cause of action, the court accepts all properly pleaded material facts, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Minton v. Dignity Health (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1155, 1161.) The court liberally construes the complaint pursuant to CCP 452.

Here, Plaintiff Leslie Harris has failed to plead ultimate facts to support her claim of negligence, including when, where, or how the alleged incident occurred. The elements for a cause of action for negligence include "(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; [and] (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury." (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.) Harris's complaint fails to state a claim for relief under these elements.

Harris has also failed to plead ultimate facts to support a claim of duress related to the oral settlement agreement, which is expressly referenced in the complaint. Economic duress occurs when a party commits a "wrongful act which is sufficiently coercive to cause a reasonably prudent person faced with no reasonable alternative to succumb to the perpetrator's pressure." (Perez v. Uline, Inc. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 953, 959.) Again, Harris's complaint fails to plead ultimate facts to support the contention that she signed the settlement agreement under economic duress. Saying that duress was applied is not sufficient because that is a legal conclusion; Harris must state the facts that she believes constituted duress.