Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: October 25, 2022

Case Name: Cecil Elmore v. Knowles Security, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 22STCV12021

Matter: Demurrer with Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Knowles Security Inc.

Responding Party: Unopposed / Plaintiff Cecil Elmore

Tentative Ruling: The demurrer is sustained in its entirety without leave to amend. The motion to strike is moot and the request for sanctions is denied.

Background

The Court previously sustained the demurrer of Knowles Security Inc. Cecil Elmore (Plaintiff) now files his Second Amended Complaint against Knowles, Joe Zuniga, and Josh Sadin (Defendants) for four counts of negligence.

In the first count, Plaintiff alleges that on February 18, 2022, defendants “negligently failed to properly treat and provide reasonable security to plaintiff.” He asserts that all Defendants “are engaging cooperative with Ruben Islas, the Rosslyn Lofts Housing Partners, LP, Logan Property Management, Inc., Michael Vasquez, Je T’aime Bradshaw, and Sherry Dicko to [retaliate] against the plaintiff with not providing sufficient service.” In addition, Plaintiff alleges that defendants are “engaging in witness and victim intimidation under California Penal Code 136.1.”

The second count for negligence repeats the first cause of action and additionally states that all Defendants were notified as to threats of crime by Valerie Sosa, Sarah Lopez, and “Ricky.” Plaintiff alleges that “Valerie Sosa’s guest and cooperatively Sara Lopez’s son Ricky vandalized my Ring Doorbell Camera which was damaged.”

The third count further alleges that all Defendants “failed to perform their duties” and did not comply with the standards of the Bureau of Security & Investigative Services. On April 2, 2022, Defendants were allegedly notified as to physical threats, burglary attempts, murder threats and heavy human traffic by Valerie Sosa and her guests. Plaintiff asserts that one of Sosa’s “unknown guests” exited her apartment and “brandished a semi-automatic firearm at the plaintiff and pointed the firearm at the plaintiff’s companions head.” The suspect then allegedly fled and the “second guest of Valeria Sosa’s also fled with a bicycle.” Sosa allegedly “sprayed mace at the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s companion, which resulted in injuries.” Furthermore, Ricky “pulled out a knife and threatened the plaintiff with bodily harm and murder.” Plaintiff also alleges that “Jose Sadin has not been permitted a security guard license.”

The fourth count repeats count three, but also alleges that “Ricky” threatened the Plaintiff and is a gang member of MS13. Further, “Cooperatively joining Ricky with threats were also his brother who is a guest and the son of Sara Lopez . . . The defendants are purposely engaging cooperatively to [retaliate] against the plaintiff for complaints to the Bureau of Security & Investigative Services.”

Defendants demur to the Second Amended Complaint for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts. They also move to strike Paragraph 14(a)(2) in the Prayer for Relief section of the Complaint that requests for punitive damages and request $1,500.00 in sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

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.”)

Plaintiff adds a series of allegations against multiple individuals and whose relationships are not evident. In addition, it is unclear what these individuals’ relationships are to defendants Knowles, Zuniga, and Sadin. The Complaint alleges that Defendants were “engaging cooperatively” with other entities and individuals to retaliate against Plaintiff. It is unclear if Plaintiff is an employee with Knowles or if he was a client, or whether there was some other relationship. Thus, the Court sustains the demurrer based on uncertainty.

There are unintelligible 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.)

As mentioned earlier, Plaintiff adds in several factual allegations, but these facts are insufficient, vague, and conclusory.

In the first cause of action, he alleges all Defendants cooperated with “Ruben Islas, the Rosslyn Lofts Housing Partners, LP, Logan Property Management, Inc., Michael Vasquez, Je T’aime Bradshaw, and Sherry Dicko to [retaliate] against the plaintiff with not providing sufficient service.” It is not clear who these individuals are and their relation to the moving Defendants.

The theory under the second claim appears to be that Valerie Sosa, Sara Lopez, and “Ricky” vandalized Plaintiff’s Ring Doorbell Camera. But Plaintiff does not connect these individuals to Defendants Knowles, Zuniga, and Sadin. Instead, he merely alleges they cooperated with certain other entities and individuals. This is vague, conclusory, and unclear as to what “engaging cooperatively” means.

Similarly, the third claim seems to allege that Valerie Sosa, Sara Lopez, and Ricky committed various crimes against Plaintiff. It seems Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant and its hired security guards were responsible for those crimes because they were the security presence on that day. Plaintiff again only states that Defendants were “engaging cooperatively with Ruben Islas, the Rosslyn Lofts Housing Partners, LP, Logan Property Management, Inc., Michael Vasquez, Je T’aime Bradshaw, and Sherry Dicko to [retaliate] against the plaintiff with not providing sufficient service.” The fourth claim makes similar allegations that Ricky is a “gang member of MS13” and again, that all defendants are “engaging cooperatively” to retaliate against Plaintiff. Yet again, Plaintiff does not articulate his role relative to the Defendants.

As the Court previously noted, Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendants somehow owed a duty to Plaintiff based on these events because the relationship between the parties are unclear.

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.

After a court sustains a demurrer, the burden is on the plaintiff to show how the complaint can be amended and the legal effect of the amendment on the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)

Because Plaintiff failed to oppose the demurrer and motion to strike, he has not shown a reasonable possibility to cure the defects. Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) The motion to strike is denied as moot and the request for sanctions is denied.

The Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.