Hester v. Southern Cal. Regional Rail Authority CA2/8

Filed 3/29/24 Hester v. Southern Cal. Regional Rail Authority CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

LUTHER HESTER, B321396

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21AVCV00128 v.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY DBA METROLINK,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael C. Kelley, Judge. Affirmed. Luther Hester, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Ivie McNeill Wyatt Purcell & Diggs, Rickey Ivie and Marie Maurice for Defendant and Respondent. ____________________ Luther Hester sued Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) for premises liability. Metrolink and Hester traded demurrers and complaints. When Hester’s second

amended complaint was essentially the same as his earlier complaints, the trial court granted a demurrer without leave to amend. Hester argues the court did not let him present his side. We affirm because Hester had a sufficient opportunity to present his case and he gives no record or legal support to demonstrate otherwise. Hester’s original complaint had one sentence of allegations. He said his head got caught in a Metrolink train door. Metrolink demurred. It argued Hester did not sufficiently allege duty, did not allege facts that Metrolink had notice of a dangerous condition, and did not allege facts that Metrolink negligently used or maintained property. Metrolink included as an exhibit the Judicial Council of California’s Civil Jury Instructions for premises liability. Hester did not file an opposition to the demurrer. The court “fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented” and sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. Hester filed a first amended complaint that again alleged premises liability and reworded the same facts as his original complaint. Metrolink demurred with the same reasoning as the first demurrer. Hester did not file an opposition. The court “considered the moving papers and oral testimony” and sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. The court directed Hester to file an amended complaint “that specifically alleges a legally recognized dangerous condition which holds the Defendant responsible.” Hester filed a second amended complaint that again alleged premises liability and reworded the same facts as the earlier complaints. Metrolink demurred a third time with the same