Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: November 14, 2023

Case Name: Annoxmimbar v. The County of Los Angeles

Case No.: 23STCV12094

Matter: Demurrer

Moving Party: Defendant County of Los Angeles

Responding Party: None

Tentative Ruling: The Demurrer to the Amended Complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff Mallium Annoxmimbar (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against “the City and the County of Los Angeles.”

On July 24, 2023, Defendant County of Los Angeles (County) filed a demurrer the Complaint. No opposition was filed. The demurrer was sustained with leave to amend.

On October 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 108-page “Complaint Statement Amended.” On October 6, 2023, the County filed a demurrer. That demurrer is the matter before the Court, set for hearing on November 14, 2023.

But on October 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 61-page “Complaint Statement.” On October 19, 2023, the City of Los Angeles demurred to this Complaint. That demurrer is set for hearing on December 5, 2023.

On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 47-page “Complaint Statement Cross-Complaints & Additional Concerns.”

The Demurrer to the October 4, 2023 “Complaint Statement Amended” is sustained without leave to amend. The Court will strike Plaintiff’s subsequent filings, presumably which were intended to be amended pleadings, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436. The December 5, 2023 hearing is taken off calendar. This case is dismissed.

Legal Standard for Demurrers

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

Allegations in the Complaint

Defendant County argues the allegations are entirely unintelligible and uncertain. Defendant’s demurer based on uncertainty is – once again – well-taken.

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 establishes that a pleading that is “uncertain” is subject to demurrer, defining “uncertain” to include “ambiguous and unintelligible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) However, a demurrer based on uncertainty is disfavored and will be strictly construed, even when the pleading is uncertain in some respects, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery practices. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Nonetheless, a demurrer for uncertainty is properly sustained where the complaint is so confusing that the defendant's ability to understand the complaint is impaired. (Cf. Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2 [though “inconvenient, annoying and inconsiderate,” lack of labels for causes of action did not substantially impair defendant's ability to understand complaint, so demurrer on ground of uncertainty should have been overruled].)

Here, the Amended Complaint is completely devoid of any comprehensible cause of action. Instead, the Amended Complaint contains only a litany of unrelated facts pertaining to Plaintiff’s personal history dating back to when Plaintiff was 12-years-old. The Amended Complaint is uncertain.

Further, the Court declines to grant leave to amend; Plaintiff’s subsequent filings indicate that it is not reasonably possible for Plaintiff to amend to cure these defects and state a claim.

Conclusion

The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. The case is dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, Plaintiff Annoxmimbar is ordered to file no further pleadings in this matter. Should Plaintiff seek to file any further pleadings in this case, the Court will set an order to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay sanctions up to $1,000 and why he should not be deemed a vexatious litigant.

Defendant County shall give notice of this order, including to counsel for the City of Los Angeles.