Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV4106, Date: 2023-06-30 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 22STCV4106    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff Anthony Udom, a self-represented litigant, sued Defendant Special Service for Groups, Inc. pursuant to allegations that read in full: “Special Service for Groups for Groups physician Dr. Vincent prescribed two sleeping pills medications that cause Plaintiff male erectile dysfunction. Plaintiff cannot have sex anymore. Plaintiff[’s] penis is permanently weak and cannot perform sexual function. Plaintiff is asking for damages in the amount of 100 million dollars.”

On March 16, 2023, the Court related the present case to Udom v. Kress House, Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number 22STCV35961, where Kress House is not a legal entity, and both cases were defended by counsel for “Special Service for Groups, Inc.”

On April 11, 2023, Special Service for Groups demurred to the Complaint in this action, which Plaintiff Udom failed to oppose.

On May 1, 2023, following Plaintiff Udom’s failure to amend the complaint in that action after the Court sustained a demurrer, with leave to amend, the Court dismissed Udom v. Kress House, 22STCV35961.

On June 30, 2023, the Court sustained Special Service for Groups’ demurrer, with leave to amend.

On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff Udom filed a First Amended Complaint.

On July 21, 2023, Special Service for Groups filed an ex parte application to dismiss this action for failure to file an amended pleading following the June 30th order.

On July 24, 2023, the Court denied the ex parte and accepted the July 14th filing by Plaintiff Udom.

No proof of service for the FAC appears in the record.

On August 24, 2023, Special Service for Groups demurred to the FAC.

Plaintiff Udom has failed to oppose the demurrer, which is now before the Court.

Demurrer

Self-Represented Litigant

Plaintiff 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, 208-209 [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.) In testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer, however, “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228, disapproved on other grounds, Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1162.) The face of the complaint includes exhibits attached to the complaint. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.) If facts appearing in the exhibits contradict those alleged, the facts in the exhibits take precedence. (Holland v. Morse Diesel Intern., Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447.) The Court may also, in appropriate circumstances, take judicial notice of official records in ruling on a demurrer on certain grounds. (Boyd v. Freeman (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 847, 855.)

Demurrer 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.) As a result, a special demurrer for uncertainty is not intended to reach failure to incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading but is directed only at uncertainty existing in the allegations already made. (People v. Taliaferro (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 822, 825.) 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. (See ibid.; see also 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”].)

Demurrer to FAC: SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.

In full, the FAC reads:

“First Amended Complaint.

Cause of action. Tort.

Facts. I spoke to Dr. Vincent who told me that the two sleeping medications is the cause of Erectile dysfunction that makes my pennis permanently weak. Dr. Vincent is an Employee of special service for groups and made the prescription. I Went to special Service for groups to get the names of the two sleeping medications but they refused To give me the names. Dante chambers the case manager told me that if I came back He will call police for to be arrested for trespassing. He gave this phone no. 2132235922, and tell 2135980637 for the court to call to get the names of the two Sleeping medication.

Trial submitted By Anthony Udom. [Signature]

July 14, 2023

Compensation for damages to be decided by a jury.”

(FAC, pp. 1-2.)

In its demurrer, Special Service for Groups argues that “the First Amended Complaint fail to state any cause of action (legal theory) against this demurring defendant” and that “[t]he allegations of the First Amended Complaint are vague, ambiguous and incomprehensible.” (Demurrer, p. 3; see Demurrer, pp. 5-6.)

The Court agrees with Special Service for Groups.

To the extent that Plaintiff is claiming negligence, medical malpractice, or another claim against Special Service for Groups, the basis for that liability against Special Service for Groups, as premised on Dr. Vincent’s actions, is unclear other than an employment relationship that does not clearly impute tortious conduct on Special Service for Groups. Moreover, the allegations against Dr. Vincent are unclear and conclusory as to how the prescription of two sleeping medications by Dr. Vincent resulted in Plaintiff Udom’s erectile dysfunction or whether Code of Civil Procedure section 364 was complied with before filing this suit.

As this is the second demurrer and Plaintiff has failed to show any basis how the complaint could be amended to cure these defects, Defendant Special Service for Groups’ demurrer is thus SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. 

Conclusion

Defendant Special Service for Groups, Inc.’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.

Defendant to give notice and file a proposed judgment.