Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV01728, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01728    Hearing Date: October 6, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Anne H. Decunha sues Defendants Fidelity National Title Co., East West Bank, and Does 1 to 100 pursuant to a March 22, 2023 First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging putative claims of (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Common Counts, (3) Total Disregard for People Non-White, (4) Collusion, (5) Identity Theft, (6) Forged Documents, (7) Slander of Title, (8) Negligent of Duties and Care [sic], (9) Embezzlement, and (10) Malicious Attitude to the Welfare of Citizens. (The caption names two or three other Defendants, who are not named in section 1 of the FAC.)

The FAC was filed by Plaintiff in pro per and physically consists of a two-page pleading, with no attachments, let alone attachments alleging the factual ground(s) for each stated cause of action.

On July 5, 2023, Defendant Fidelity National Title Co. (Fidelity) demurred to the FAC’s ten putative causes of action on sufficiency and uncertainty in pleading grounds.

On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff Decunha—still acting in pro per—opposed the demurrer.

On September 28, 2023, Fidelity replied to the opposition.

Fidelity’s demurrer is now before the Court.

Demurrer

Demurrer 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, 966-67.) 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, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in White v. Cridlebaugh (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 506, 521.)

Uncertainty Legal 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, disapproved on other grounds in Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 46 [holding claims for unfair business practices need not be pled specifically, impliedly disapproving Khoury].) 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, disapproved on other grounds in Jefferson v. J.E. French Co. (1960) 54 Cal.2d 717, 719-720 [statute of limitations question].) 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”].)

Complaint, all causes of action: SUSTAINED, With Leave to Amend.

In its demurrer to the Complaint’s ten putative “causes of action,” Defendant Fidelity argues that the claims are unintelligible as currently posed because “Fidelity is unable to determine what claims are being asserted against it or the basis for any such claim.” (Demurrer, p. 8.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the FAC advances allegations entitling Plaintiff to relief and that leave to amend should be granted if the Court finds that the FAC is insufficiently pleaded. (Opp’n, pp. 4-7.)

In reply, Fidelity reiterates its grounds for demurrer, advances two new points for the first time, and argues that no leave should be granted to Plaintiff to amend her pleading. (Reply, pp. 2-4.)

The Court finds that it is proper to sustain the demurrer but does so with leave to amend.

The Court briefly recognizes that Fidelity raises two important arguments in reply. The first is that Plaintiff’s claims are time barred because the original January 26, 2023 Complaint clarifies that the alleged wrongs in this action occurred between 2007 and 2009. The second is that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring her claims against Fidelity because she filed for bankruptcy in 2010 and 2014, making any rights claimed by Plaintiff in relation to this lawsuit the property of the bankruptcy estate. (Reply, pp. 3-4.)

Neither of these arguments, however, were raised in the demurrer, and the Court refuses to accept them for the first time in reply. (Nordstrom Com. Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 576, 583 [Courts generally need not accept arguments raised for the first time on reply without good cause explanation as to why points were not raised earlier].)

The Court next determines that the FAC’s claims are uncertain.

The FAC lists out its claims at sections 8 and 9 of the FAC. (See FAC, p. 2.) However, the FAC fails to attach “[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause[s] of action [pleaded in the FAC], in ordinary and concise language” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10. (See FAC.) Without such information, the Court is “unable to determine what claims are being asserted against [Fidelity] or the basis for any such claim.” (Demurrer, p. 8.)

Fidelity’s demurrer is thus SUSTAINED based on uncertainty in pleading.

However, the Court gives Plaintiff LEAVE TO AMEND her claims. The Court recognizes that the opposition makes thin arguments for why leave should be granted (Opp’n, pp. 6-7; cf. Reply, pp. 3-4.) Yet, at this point in the proceedings, and given that the statute of limitations and bankruptcy arguments are not before the Court, the Court determines that the most appropriate course is to grant leave to amend to give Plaintiff the opportunity to redraft her complaint to clarify how many claims she is bringing and what each claim is, and to attach to such pleading (1) attachments that state allegations supporting Plaintiff’s putative claims and (2) exhibits supporting Plaintiff’s claims (like those attached to the original January 26, 2023 Complaint). 

Conclusion

Defendant Fidelity National Title Co.’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED, With Leave to Amend.

Plaintiff Anne H. Decunha is given 30 DAYS’ LEAVE to amend her pleadings.

Plaintiff is referred to the Los Angeles Law Library, which assists pro per litigants in civil proceedings.