West American Insurance Company v. ADT Commercial LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 18, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-06849
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CV 20-6849-RSWL-RAOx 12 WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ORDER re: Motion for 13 Judgment on the Pleadings Plaintiff, 14 [18] v. 15 16 ADT COMMERCIAL LLC, formerly known as Red Hawk 17 Fire and Security, LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, 18 19 Defendants. 20 21 On May 11, 2020, Plaintiff West American Insurance 22 Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this Action [1-2] in the 23 Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los 24 Angeles, seeking subrogation from Defendant ADT 25 Commercial LLC, formerly known as Red Hawk Fire and 26 Security, LLC (“Defendant”). Defendant removed [1] the 27 Action on July 30 and answered [10] on August 10. 28 1 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion

2 for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”). For the

3 reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 4 I. BACKGROUND 5 Plaintiff is an insurance provider authorized to 6 transact insurance business in California. Notice of 7 Removal Ex. 2 (“Compl.”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 1-2. Defendant is 8 a Colorado limited liability company with its principal 9 place of business in Florida. Answer ¶ 2, ECF No. 10. 10 Plaintiff insured Boulevard Investment Group, Inc. 11 for the premises located at 11645 Wilshire Blvd., Los 12 Angeles, CA (the “Subject Premises”). Compl. ¶ 6. On 13 May 13, 2017, the Subject Premises sustained substantial 14 water damage when part of the fire suppression system 15 failed, causing water to flood the building and 16 resulting in structural damage, property damage, and the 17 interruption of business operations within the building. 18 Id. ¶ 9. As the insurer of the Subject Premises, 19 Plaintiff paid Boulevard Investment Group, Inc. an 20 amount in excess of $771,882, which constituted the 21 indemnity payment less the relevant deductible. Id. ¶ 22 10. 23 Plaintiff asserts claims of negligence and 24 negligence per se arising out of the May 13 flooding of 25 the Subject Premises. See generally id. Plaintiff’s 26 claims are based on Defendant’s alleged negligence, 27 carelessness, and recklessness in inspecting, testing, 28 and servicing the fire suppression system at the Subject 1 Premises. Id. ¶¶ 7-9. 2 On February 9, 2021, Defendant filed this Motion

3 for Judgment on the Pleadings [18]. Plaintiff opposed 4 [19] the Motion on February 16, and Defendant replied 5 [20] on February 23. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 A. Legal Standard 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(c) 9 states that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early 10 enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment 11 on the pleadings.” Judgment on the pleadings is 12 appropriate “when, taking all the allegations in the 13 non-moving party’s pleadings as true, the moving party 14 is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ventress 15 v. Japan Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 2007) 16 (quoting Fajardo v. County of Los Angeles, 179 F.3d 698, 17 699 (9th Cir. 1999)). 18 The standard governing Rule 12(b)(6) motions also 19 governs 12(c) motions. Chavez v. United States, 683 20 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012). The facts are viewed 21 in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, and all 22 reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of that party. 23 Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 24 431 F.3d 353, 360 (9th Cir. 2005). Dismissal is proper 25 “only if it is clear that no relief could be granted 26 under any set of facts that could be proved consistent 27 with the allegations.” Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 28 1225 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 1 N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002)). 2 B. Discussion

3 Plaintiff asserts negligence claims1 against 4 Defendant, alleging that Defendant “negligently, 5 carelessly and recklessly inspected, tested, and 6 serviced, the fire suppression system . . . at the 7 [Subject Premises], in violation of its duties pursuant 8 to [National Fire Protection Association standard] 25.” 9 Compl. ¶ 7. In its Motion, Defendant argues that 10 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege a duty under 11 ordinary tort law principles, as “[t]here is no common 12 law duty to inspect, test, or service the subject system 13 . . . because these duties only exist in contractual 14 agreements.” Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for J. on the 15 Pleadings 6:6-7:1, ECF No. 18-1. Defendant further 16 argues that negligence per se does not salvage the 17 Complaint because it “is devoid of any factual 18 allegations that [Defendant] violated any statute, 19 ordinance, or regulation imposing upon [Defendant] a 20 duty to inspect, test, or service the subject system.” 21 Id. at 7:16-8:2. 22 To successfully plead a negligence claim, Plaintiff 23 must allege a duty, breach of duty, causation, and 24 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts two causes of action: negligence and negligence per se. But negligence per se is an 25 evidentiary doctrine—not a cause of action—that a plaintiff may 26 use to establish a duty, as well as a breach of that duty, beyond the limited common law standards of care. Jones v. Awad, 39 Cal. 27 App. 5th 1200, 1210-11 (2019). 28 1 damages. Berkley v. Dowds, 152 Cal. App. 4th 518, 526

2 (2007). Because Plaintiff relies on statutory language

3 and fire standards—rather than common law tort 4 principles—to impose a duty on Defendant, the Court 5 analyzes Plaintiff’s claims under the doctrine of 6 negligence per se. See Casey v. Russell, 138 Cal. App. 7 3d 379, 383 (1982) (recognizing that the doctrine of 8 negligence per se “means that the court has adopted the 9 conduct prescribed by the statute[, ordinance, or 10 regulation of a public entity] as the standard of care 11 for a reasonable person in the circumstances”); see also 12 Cal. Evid. Code § 669. 13 Plaintiff’s first contention is that Defendant 14 breached its duty of care under National Fire Protection 15 Association (“NFPA”) standard 25. Compl. ¶ 7; Opp’n to 16 Mot. for J. on the Pleadings (“Opp’n”) 1:2-9, ECF No. 17 19. But the NFPA is not a governmental entity; it is “a 18 global self-funded nonprofit organization . . . devoted 19 to eliminating death, injury, property and economic loss 20 due to fire, electrical and related hazards.” National 21 Fire Protection Association, NFPA Overview, 22 https://www.nfpa.org/overview (last visited Mar. 11, 23 2021). Therefore, unless adopted as a statute, 24 ordinance, or regulation, the standards of NFPA 25 25 cannot supplant the ordinary standard of care. See Cal. 26 Evid. Code § 669 (extending the doctrine of negligence 27 per se to statues, ordinances, or regulations adopted by 28 public entities). Plaintiff tellingly cites no legal 1 authority in which a court used NFPA provisions to set

2 the relevant standard of care.

3 Plaintiff also argues that its allegations are 4 adequate to establish a breach of duty under California 5 Civil Code § 1708, which provides that “[e]very person 6 is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the 7 person or property of another, or infringing upon any of 8 his or her rights.” But Section 1708 “does not impose 9 liability in the absence of a legal duty of care.” 10 Aranda v. CitiMortgage Inc., No. SACV 13099273 JVS 11 (MLGx), 2013 WL 12182677, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2013) 12 (citation omitted); see also Whitaker v. Tandy Corp., 13 No. C-97-00803-VRW, 1997 WL 703766, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 14 Oct. 31, 1997) (“In absence of any other alleged legal 15 duty, the cause of action under § 1708 must be 16 dismissed.”). Because Plaintiff fails to adequately 17 allege a legal duty arising from ordinary tort law or a 18 relevant regulation, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 19 III. CONCLUSION 20 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS 21 Defendant’s Motion with leave to amend within twenty-one 22 (21) days of the date of this Order. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 DATED: March 18, 2021 _______/s/_ R_o_na_ld_ S_._W_. _Le_w____________ HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW 27 Senior U.S. District Judge 28