Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: August 31, 2022

Case Name: Mattie Twynette Lomax v. Skid Row Housing Trust, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV30915

Matter: Demurrer

Moving Party: Defendant Rex Jones

Responding Party: No opposition

Tentative Ruling: The demurrer is sustained in its entirety without leave to amend.

On August 20, 2021, Mattie Twynette Lomax (Plaintiff or Lomax) filed a complaint for property damages. She alleges three causes of action: (1) general negligence, (2) intentional tort, and (3) “Other” – “The Mother was cut off from receiving his identification to give to FEMA for burial assistant and cause the Mother.” The Complaint names a myriad of Defendants. Plaintiff notes that “Olympia Hotel Apartment was the landlord under Skid Row Housing Trust and Thianne Garrett.” (Complaint, ¶ 1.) Between November 2021 and February 2022, Plaintiff substituted in 19 other individuals for the DOE defendants.

The Complaint appears to relate to the death of Plaintiff’s son, Edward Levy. Plaintiff asserts that she called the defendants several times, but they did not return her calls and subsequently caused delayed funeral arrangements. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) She seeks damages in the form of funeral home expenses, cemetery plot, and clothing. (Id. at ¶ 13.)

On April 22, 2022, the Court granted Defendant Skid Row Housing Trust’s demurrer without leave to amend. On June 27, 2022, the Court dismissed Defendants Skid Row Housing Trust, Jennifer Christian-Herman, Benjamin Henwood, Diane Ballen, Paul Gregerson, and Diana Skidmore from the case.

Defendant Rex Jones now demurs to the Complaint for uncertainty, vagueness, and ambiguity. Rex Jones is not mentioned in the Complaint at all. In addition, he asserts there are insufficient facts to support each cause of action and the Complaint overall is unintelligible. Ms. Truong’s declaration indicates compliance with the meet-and-confer requirement. (Truong Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)

Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

Discussion

Uncertainty

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.) A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so deficient that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f) [“ ‘uncertain’ includes ambiguous and unintelligible.”)

After reviewing the Complaint, the Court finds that it is so unclear such that Defendant cannot respond. Plaintiff has failed to identify, with particularity, the basis on which they seek to impose liability on Defendant. The Complaint is unintelligible and does not apprise Defendant of the wrongs for which Plaintiff seeks remedy. Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained for uncertainty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)

Insufficient Facts

The Complaint fails to mention Rex Jones at all, and it is unclear his relationship to Plaintiff or this case. Rex Jones was added by way of amendment on January 25, 2022, along with Wells Fargo. However, Plaintiff provides no facts as to his role or acts in the case.

Leave to Amend

A court should grant leave to amend if there is “any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) However, the burden is on the plaintiff to show in what manner the complaint can be amended and how the amendment would change the legal effect of the pleading. (Ibid.) Thus, if there is any theory or probability that plaintiff will cure defect, the court should grant leave to amend. However, if the “facts are not in dispute and the nature of the claim is clear, but no liability exists under substantive law”, then leave to amend should be denied. (Lawrence v. Bank of Am. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 431, 436.)

The Complaint is unintelligible and uncertain and contains no facts that suggest that Plaintiff may have a valid cause of action against any of the Defendants for any cause of action.

In light of the uncertain nature of the Complaint and Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the demurrer, Plaintiff has not met her burden to show how the Complaint can be amended. Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer in its entirety without leave to amend.