Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV35961, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35961    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

MOVING PARTY:              Defendant Special Service for Groups, Inc. [sued as Kress House].

OPPOSITION:                      [None]

Background

On November 15, 2022, pro se Plaintiff Anthony Udom sued Defendant Kress House pursuant to allegations—unmoored from any stated cause of action—that read in full: “Kress House, Project 180 Physician, Dr. Vincent, prescribed two sleeping pill[] medications that gave Plaintiff male erectile dysfunction,” making “Plaintiff impotent” and unable to “have sex,” and that despite seeing “urolog[ists] who prescribed six different medications for erection,” “none [have] worked,” where the condition is “permanent” and has caused Udom “$100 million [in] damages.”

On December 21, 2022, Defendant Special Service for Groups, Inc. (“SSGI”)—erroneously sued as Kress House—brought a general sufficiency and special uncertainty demurrer to Plaintiff Udom’s Complaint.

The demurrer is unopposed by Plaintiff Udom.

Demurrer

Self-Represented Litigant

Plaintiff Anthony Udom is self-represented. Self-represented litigants are held to the same standards that apply to licensed attorneys. (Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1056; see Lombardi v. Citizens Nat’l Trust & Sav. Bank (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 206, 208-09 [Stating that self-represented litigants are “restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is required of those qualified to practice law before our courts”].)

Sufficiency Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747; see Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) This device can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a [general] demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)

Uncertainty Standard

A demurrer to a pleading lies where the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (f).) “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Where complaint is sufficient to state a cause of action and to apprise defendant of issues he is to meet, it is not properly subject to a special demurrer for uncertainty. (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643 [“A special demurrer [for uncertainty] should be overruled where the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues which he is to meet”].)

Complaint, Uncertainty Demurrer: SUSTAINED, With Leave to Amend.

In its demurrer, SSGI argues that “Plaintiff’s complaint is written in so incomprehensible a fashion that it is impossible for th[e] demurring Defendant to discern what plaintiff is alleging, or against whom” where “[i]t is not even clear what cause of action, if any, plaintiff is asserting” and that if “plaintiff is making a medical malpractice claim[,] then he has clearly not met the procedural requirements for such an action” as set forth in “Code of Civil Procedure section 364,” for which reason “[t]here are certainly no facts alleged in the complaint alleging any tortious conduct on the part of this demurring defendant.” (Demurrer, 4:7-14.)

The Court agrees with SSGI. The Complaint, as it currently stands, reads unintelligibly and does not properly inform Defendant SSGI what cause of action it faces and why SSGI’s alleged conduct—rather than that of SSGI’s physician—led to the harms described by Defendant Udom.

Conclusion

Defendant Kress House’s Demurrer of Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED, With Leave to Amend, based on the uncertain pleadings of the Complaint as directed at the sole Defendant, Special Service for Groups, Inc., erroneously sued as Kress House.