Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case 22STCV12021 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Tentative Ruling: The demurrer is sustained in its entirety with leave to amend. The motion to strike is granted. Plaintiff is granted 20 days leave to amend.

On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff Cecil Elmore filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants Knowles Security, Inc. and Jose Sadin alleging three causes of action for general negligence on three different dates: February 18, 2022, March 22, 2022, and April 2, 2022.

The allegations are virtually identical for each cause of action: Plaintiff is a resident at 451 South Main Street in Los Angeles and Defendants failed to perform their duties and exercise ordinary precautions of their services on the respective dates.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “negligently failed to exercise the degree of knowledge and proper skill sets and their services and/or profession, and so negligently and unskillfully performed and/or assisted during the duties of protecting residents. They negligently failed to properly treat and provide reasonable security to plaintiff; and negligently failed to adhere to the standard and the applicable community of the Bureau of Security & Investigative Services.”

Defendant Knowles Security (Defendant or Knowles) demurred to the Complaint for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts. Knowles also argues that to the extent that Plaintiff is alleging premises liability, this fails because Knowles is not the landowner.

Knowles also moves to strike Paragraph 14(a)(2) in the Prayer for Relief section of the Complaint that requests for punitive damages.

Plaintiff only provided a P.O. Box on the Complaint and did not provide his phone number or e-mail address. Defendant’s counsel averred that he mailed correspondence to the P.O. Box in an attempt to meet and confer, but no response was received. (Escalante Decl. ¶ 15.)

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.”)

While the Complaint is tethered on legal conclusions, it is not so unintelligible that Defendant cannot meaningfully respond. As Defendant concedes, Plaintiff is asserting that on three different dates, the security company failed to perform their duties by protecting him.

The complaint alleges no facts to support the claims for general negligence.

The elements for negligence are: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co.¿(2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)

The Complaint contains no factual allegations apart from the specific date that the events supposedly transpired. The rest of the allegations are conclusory and merely state that Defendant failed to perform its duties, failed to exercise ordinary precautions, negligently performed its duties of protecting residents, and negligently failed to adhere to the standards set forth by the Bureau of Security & Investigative Services.

The allegations are all conclusions of law. For purposes of demurrer, the Court need not accept legal conclusions as true. “Although a court must on demurrer accept as true properly pleaded facts, a demurrer does not admit contentions or conclusions of law or fact.” (Freeman v. San Diego Association of Realtors (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 171, 184, fn. 11.)

Plaintiff fails to allege whether Defendant owed him a duty, how that duty was breached, how that breach caused his harm, and the harm that he suffered. Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained as to all causes of action with leave to amend.

A claim for punitive damages in a complaint must allege that the defendant “has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) Exemplary damages are typically not available for negligence causes of action. (Kendall Yacht Corp. v. United California Bank (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 949, 958.)

The Complaint fails to allege any facts indicating that Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, or malice. Accordingly, the motion to strike is granted and Paragraph 14(a)(2) is ordered stricken.

The Court grants Plaintiff twenty days leave to file and serve an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall be served and filed on or before August 22, 2022.

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58