Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case 22STCV31828 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV31828, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31828 Hearing Date: January 17, 2023 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Landgrebe vs. Obagi Inc., et. al., Case No. 22STCV31828

Tentative Ruling re: Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint

Defendant Obagi Cosmeceuticals, LLC (Defendant) demurs to the Complaint of Plaintiff Susanne Landgrebe (Plaintiff). The demurrer is sustained with ten (10) days leave to amend.

In reviewing the legal sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, a court will treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (Blank); C & H Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1062.) It is well settled that a “demurrer lies only for defects appearing on the face of the complaint[.]” (Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) “The rules by which the sufficiency of a complaint is tested against a general demurrer are well settled. We not only treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but also give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Guclimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38 (internal quotes omitted).) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, the complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded. (Wilner v. Sunset Life Ins. Co. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 952, 958.)

When ruling on a demurrer, the Court may only consider the complaint’s allegations or matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at 318.) The Court may not consider any other extrinsic evidence or judge the credibility of the allegations plead or the difficulty a plaintiff may have in proving his allegations. (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.) A demurrer is properly sustained only when the complaint, liberally construed, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action. (Kramer v. Intuit Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 574, 578.)

Plaintiff alleges that she developed Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia as a result of using Defendant’s products on her skin for over 15 years. (Comp. ¶¶ 10-12.) The Complaint asserts six causes of action against Defendant, for negligence, strict liability, fraud, breach of implied warranties, and loss of consortium.

Defendant first argues that the demurrer should be sustained based on uncertainty, because the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to allow for a choice of law determination. The Court agrees.

A special demurrer to a complaint may be brought on the ground the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f); Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180, 1191.) A demurrer based on uncertainty is disfavored and will be strictly construed even when the pleading is uncertain in some respects. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616 (Khoury).) A demurrer for uncertainty may be sustained when a defendant cannot reasonably determine to what he or she is required to respond. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2; see Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial Ch. 6-E ¶¶ 7:85 (The Rutter Group) (Uncertainty).)

“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.” (Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (1972) 7 Cal.3d 150, 157.) “Uncertainty is a sufficient basis for objection only if the uncertainty is in material allegations of the complaint. If the uncertain allegations are not essential to the claim, then their uncertainty is of no consequence.” (1 Carr and Schwing, Cal. Affirmative Def. (2d ed. 2022) Uncertain pleadings, § 10:1.)

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks essential facts regarding where Plaintiff purchased Defendant’s products and where she was exposed to the products. Plaintiff also has not alleged her state of residence. As Defendant points out, such facts are necessary to allow the Court to make a choice of law determination. California applies the governmental interest analysis in resolving choice-of-law issues, which requires the court to determine “whether the relevant law of each of the potentially affected jurisdictions with regard to the particular issue in question is the same or different”; if there is a difference, whether “a true conflict exists” between each jurisdiction’s interest in the application of its own law; and, if there is true conflict, “which state's interest would be more impaired if its policy were subordinated to the policy of the other state.” (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 95, 107.) Without facts showing the “potentially affected jurisdictions,” the Court cannot assess the laws and interests of those jurisdictions to determine which state’s laws apply.

Such facts are also necessary to assess whether Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations of the state in which Plaintiff’s claims arose. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 361, “[w]hen a cause of action has arisen in another State . . . and by the laws thereof an action thereon cannot there be maintained against a person by reason of the lapse of time, an action thereon shall not be maintained against him in this State, except in favor of one who has been a citizen of this State, and who has held the cause of action from the time it accrued.” Plaintiff’s allegations do not show whether Plaintiff’s cause of action has arisen in another state or if Plaintiff is a citizen of California. The uncertainty in Plaintiff’s Complaint thus relates to material allegations, and the pleadings fail to “acquaint the defendant with the nature, source and extent of [its] cause of action.” (Harman, supra, 7 Cal.3d at 157.) Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained based on uncertainty.