Club Donatello Owners Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco
Filed 4/28/06 Club Donatello Owners Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| CLUB DONATELLO OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant and Respondent. | A111126 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-04-428843) |
Plaintiff Club Donatello Owners Association (Club) manages three floors of timeshare rooms in a hotel. When a fire alarm in the hotel went off, firefighters from the City and County of San Francisco (City) responded, inspected, and found nothing. Later it was discovered that a sprinkler in a sauna on the floor above the Club's rooms, undetected by the firefighters, had been operating. Some of the Club's rooms suffered water damage.
The Club sued the City, alleging that the firefighters had been negligent in their inspection of the hotel. When the City filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, however, the Club did not file an opposition. After the trial court sustained the unopposed demurrer on the substantive grounds asserted by the City, the Club did not seek relief from its procedural default. In this court, the Club asserts two legal arguments that do not address or refute any of the substantive grounds relied on by the trial court in sustaining the demurrer. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 17, 2004, the Club filed a complaint against the City. The complaint alleges that the Club is a homeowner's association that manages a 45-room hotel condominium timeshare project located in the Donatello Hotel in San Francisco. The timeshare rooms occupy three upper floors of the building, with a standard commercial hotel operating on the lower floors. The top floor of the hotel, located immediately above the three floors occupied by the Club, contains a lounge available to all guests of the hotel. On the lounge floor are saunas, locker rooms, and a fitness center.
The complaint alleges that on February 13, 2003, the lounge was closed and vacated as usual at 10:30 p.m. Approximately an hour later, a fire alarm sounded, indicating that a fire sprinkler had activated somewhere in the building. Members of the City fire department arrived promptly, searched the building, told the hotel staff that they had found nothing in their inspection, and allowed hotel guests to return to their rooms. Approximately an hour and a half after the fire department personnel left the building, it was discovered that a sprinkler in the women's sauna in the lounge had been discharging for some time. The discharge damaged rooms on the Club's floors immediately below the lounge floor.
The complaint alleges that the fire department personnel were negligent in their inspection, which did not turn up the discharging sauna sprinkler. The Club sought compensatory damages associated with repair of the water-damaged rooms.
The City filed a demurrer on August 4, 2004. The demurrer asserted that (1) the complaint was required to allege a specific statutory ground for liability against the City, and failed to do so; (2) the City is immune from liability for acts taken in the course of fire protection activities under Government Code sections 850, 850.2, and 850.4; and (3) the â€
