Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 19STCV29844, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV29844    Hearing Date: November 7, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff Lloyd W. Brooks, in pro per, (Plaintiff) filed a form complaint against Defendant Starbucks Corporation (Defendant). On August 3, 2022, Defendant’s demurrer to the complaint and motion to strike punitive damages were sustained and granted with leave to amend. (Min. Order, 8/3/22.)

On April 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended form complaint. On August 21, 2023, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer with leave to amend and granted Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages without leave to amend. (Min. Order, 8/21/23.)

On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a purported second amended complaint entitled “Response to Demurrer Amended Pleading.” On September 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed an “Informal Request to Amend Pleading” where he requested leave to state specific elements of his causes of action. There appears to be no proof of service to Defendant of this filing.

On September 29, 2023, Defendant filed the instant demurrer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (SAC). Defendant argues that the SAC fails to state a cause of action and is uncertain. On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Declaration is (sic) Support of Amended Pleading”; no proof of service to Defendant was attached.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings.  It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party's pleading (complaint, answer or cross-complaint).  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 422.10, 589; see Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)  It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purposes of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true.  (Donabedian, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.)

The general rule is that the plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) “All that is required of a plaintiff, as a matter of pleading, even as against a special demurrer, is that his complaint set forth the essential facts of the case with reasonable precision and with sufficient particularity to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 156-157.) 

On demurrer, a trial court has an independent duty to “determine whether or not the … complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory.” (Das v. Bank of America, N.A. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 727, 734.) Demurrers do not lie as to only parts of causes of action, where some valid claim is alleged but “must dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained.” (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.

A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the pleading is so bad that the responding party cannot reasonably respond, i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Where a demurrer is made upon the ground of uncertainty, the demurrer must distinctly specify exactly how or why the pleading is uncertain, and where such uncertainty appears by reference to page and line numbers. (See Fenton v. Groveland Comm. Services Dist. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 797, 809.)

MEET AND CONFER

The Declaration of Samuel S. Baxter states that on September 15, 2023, he spoke with Plaintiff via telephone to explain the deficiencies of Plaintiff’s SAC. (Baxter Decl. ¶ 4.) Therefore, the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement was met.

ANALYSIS

Defendant argues that the SAC fails to comply with rule 2.112 of the California Rules of Court, which provides as follows:

“Each separately stated cause of action, count, or defense must specifically state:

(1) Its number (e.g., ‘first cause of action’);

(2) Its nature (e.g., ‘for fraud’);

(3) The party asserting it if more than one party is represented on the pleading (e.g., ‘by plaintiff Jones’); and

(4) The party or parties to whom it is directed (e.g., ‘against defendant Smith’).”

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.112.)

 “California Rules of Court, rule 2.112 provides that each cause of action should be headed so as to identify briefly the nature of the claim asserted; and if there is more than one, it should identify the defendant or defendants against whom the cause of action is being asserted. As the leading practical treatise advises, failure to comply with rule 2.112 presumably renders a complaint subject to a motion to strike (Code of Civ. Proc., § 436), or a special demurrer for uncertainty. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial) (The Rutter Group 2016, ¶ 6:113, pp. 6-33 to 6-34.)” (Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 996, 1014.)

Here, the pleading purported to be an amended complaint, and hereinafter referred to as the “SAC,” does not comply with rule 2.112 because it does not list the causes of action it purports to assert. It also does not identify which causes of action are being asserted against which defendants.  

The SAC appears to allege that (1) the “Starbuck employee had a duty to warn all Starbuck’s personnel of maintenance procedures and other bio hazardous protocol for health and safety reasons and to prevent liability on the property”; (2) “the Starbuck’s employee failed to warn Brooks and other personnel that there was maintenance going on it created liability at the fault of Starbucks”; (3) “the Starbuck’s employee failed to lock the Starbuck’s men’s bathroom door lock”; and (4) “the Starbucks employee committed perjury on the witness stand.” (Response to Demurrer Amended Pleading at p.2.)

The first allegation does not appear to be a cause of action directed at Plaintiff, but rather alleges Starbucks’ failure to warn Starbucks’ personnel. The second and third allegations do not allege facts that show a connection to the harm alleged, which appears to be that Plaintiff was “held in custody, denied bail, and sentenced to 3 years of time in custody” or that “he was accused of allegations he did not commit.” (SAC at p. 2.) The fourth allegation does not appear to allege facts against Starbucks, but rather the conduct of an employee at a separate criminal trial.

The Declaration in Support of Amended Pleading appears to argue that these allegations in the SAC can be amended further to allege the following causes of action: (1) “General Negligence”; “Fiduciary (or confidential) relationship”; (2) “Liability to Persons on the Premises and Nuisance”; (4) “Acts of Crimes Against the Public Health and Safety”; (5) “Defect on Property”; (6) “Manager’s Contribution to Negligence (malice)”; (7) “Witnesses Contribution to Plaintiff’s innocence”; (8) “Exemplary Damages.” (Dec. in Support of Amended Pleading at pp. 1-6.)

Plaintiff has not established that the complaint can be properly amended. The purported negligence cause of action is addressed above. The remainder of the purported causes of action are not supported by facts sufficient to constitute causes of action.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed on August 25, 2023 without leave to amend.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.