Aura v. City of Los Angeles CA2/8

Filed 8/17/16 Aura v. City of Los Angeles CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

ALVARO ALEJANDRO AURA, B268252

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC553821) v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elia Weinbach, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Eric Bryan Seuthe & Associates, Eric Bryan Seuthe and Terrence I. Swinson for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Amy Jo Field, Assistant City Attorney, Wendy Shapero, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent.

__________________________________

Alvaro Aura appeals the dismissal of his personal injury complaint against the City of Los Angeles (City) without leave to amend. Aura contends he stated a cause of action for a dangerous condition of public property sufficient to withstand the City’s demurrer. We affirm the judgment. FACTS Aura was hit by a car while crossing the street at a crosswalk at 11:00 p.m. on November 13, 2013, and suffered significant injuries. Aura submitted a claim for damages to the City of $1,000,000, filed pursuant to Government Code1 section 905 on February 26, 2014. When that claim was denied, Aura brought suit against the City on August 6, 2014, alleging his injuries were caused by a dangerous condition of public property in violation of section 835. Aura specifically alleged, “the single globe overhanging lamp standard was hidden by significantly overgrown trees causing the crosswalk to be dark and individuals therein to be unobservable by motorists and obstructing the view of motorists of pedestrians in the crosswalk.” Aura alleged the City knew or should have known of this dangerous condition and should have taken measures to repair or protect against it. The City demurred to the complaint on the grounds it had no duty to light the street or to maintain lighting, even at a crosswalk, and its failure to provide adequate lighting was not a physical condition of the property. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, finding ample legal support for the City’s position that it had no duty to light the area. Aura timely appealed. DISCUSSION On appeal, Aura claims he has stated facts sufficient to overcome a demurrer. Aura believes the question of whether a dangerous condition exists is a factual question to be determined at trial, not to be decided at the demurrer stage. At a minimum, he contends he should have been given leave to amend his complaint.