Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV01610, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV01610 Hearing Date: November 7, 2023 Dept: 55
Defendant County of Los Angeles’s (erroneously sued
and served as LAC-USC Medical Center) unopposed demurrer is sustained, without
leave to amend. This entire case is ordered dismissed, based on the demurrer,
and the OSC regarding failure to prosecute also set for hearing this date.
As to “[e]ach separately stated cause of action,”
pleaders must specify the number (e.g., “first cause of action”), the nature
(e.g., “fraud”), the complainants and the defendants. CRC Rule 2.112. Complaints must state causes of action that
have been recognized under California law and cannot invent new ones. Mobley v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist.
(2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 1221, 1239-40. “‘Even
as against a special demurrer, a plaintiff is required only to “set forth in
his complaint the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and
with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant of the
nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.”’” Elder v. Pac. Bell
Tel. Co. (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 841, 858. Here, Plaintiffs’ handwritten
Complaint contains a litany of allegations about events related to the late
partner of one of the plaintiffs. Many of the alleged events have no connection
to Defendant, and none of the allegations describe any wrongdoing by Defendant.
The Complaint lists no causes of action or any facts from which the Court could
infer any cause of action. The Complaint therefore is uncertain and fails to
state a claim against Defendant.
The failure to file a proper and timely opposition in
trial court creates a waiver of the issues on any appeal. Bell v. Am. Title Ins. Co. (1991) 226
Cal. App. 3d 1589, 1602. A judge in a civil case is not “’obligated to seek out
theories [a party] might have advanced, or to articulate … that which … [a
party] has left unspoken.’” Mesecher
v.