Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 24CHCV00848, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

JUNE 28, 2024

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 24CHCV00848

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Julian Lawrence Colberg, in pro per (“Plaintiff”)

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

On 3/14/24, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendant, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Trespass; (2) Fraud; (3) Negligence; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Deprivation of Right; (6) Subversion; (7) Mischief/Intentional Indifference & Malice; (8) False Imprisonment; (9) Unjust Enrichment; and (10) Racketeering.

On 4/17/24, Defendant filed the instant demurrer. On 4/25/24, Plaintiff filed a “Notice on Denial of Defendant’s Demurrer.” On 5/9/24, Plaintiff filed a “Notice on Overruling of Defendant’s Demurrer.”[1] On 6/24/24, Defendant filed her reply.

As a general matter, a party may respond to a pleading against it by demurrer on the basis of any single or combination of eight enumerated grounds, including that “the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action” and is uncertain, meaning “ambiguous and unintelligible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice.¿(Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)¿

“A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Ibid.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Here, Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s entire complaint, arguing that Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute any of the causes of action contained therein, therefore rendering the complaint fatally uncertain.

Counsel for Defendant declares that on 4/3/24, she and Plaintiff met and conferred telephonically regarding the issues raised in the instant demurrer, but the parties were unable to resolve the dispute. (Decl. of Joelle Foxwell, ¶¶ 6–10.) Therefore, the Court finds that counsel has satisfied the preliminary meet and confer requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a).

Plaintiff alleges against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Trespass; (2) Fraud; (3) Negligence; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Deprivation of Right; (6) Subversion; (7) Mischief/Intentional Indifference & Malice; (8) False Imprisonment; (9) Unjust Enrichment; and (10) Racketeering.

Here, Defendant argues that “Plaintiff’s complaint contains no factual allegations making it unclear, ambiguous and unintelligible.” (Dem. 7:27–28.) “Plaintiff’s complaint in this case is devoid of any factual allegations. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts establishing the identity of the parties, contact between the parties, jurisdiction, venue, or the events and circumstances giving rise to the complaint. It is impossible to determine who the parties are, what events transpired, where the events occurred, or when these undefined events occurred within the four corners of the complaint. Defendant cannot reasonably ascertain what claims, grounds, or basis Plaintiff has for any of his claims or even if this Court has jurisdiction over the parties or issues.” (Id. at 4:20–26.)

Upon review of Plaintiff’s one-page complaint, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff has failed to state any substantive factual allegations. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to constitute any causes of action against Defendant. Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained against the entire complaint on this basis.

Defendant argues that the complaint is uncertain pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f). As the complaint is devoid of any factual allegations against Defendant, the Court agrees with Defendant, and finds that the complaint is fatally uncertain. Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained against the entire complaint on this basis.

Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden.

[1] It is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiff’s notices are intended to serve as oppositions to Defendant’s demurrer, as they lack any substantive arguments.