Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV43597, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV43597    Hearing Date: May 22, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant MKM Investments Operation LLC’s Demurrer

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On November 30, 2021, Plaintiff Michael Robinson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant MKM Investments Operation LLC (“Defendant”).

On April 5, 2023, MKM filed a Demurrer to be heard on May 22, 2023.

There is no currently scheduled trial date.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court sustain the demurrer as it is uncertain.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 430.10 states: “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue; (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible; and (g) In an action founded

upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.”

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.) Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Id.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s complaint is uncertain. The Court agrees. First, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s “statement” is handwritten; the writing, at certain points in the text, is difficult to read. There is no clearly identified cause of action. Plaintiff attached the form complaints for “Common Counts,” and “Breach of Contract,” but provided no information on the forms, nor did he check any boxes on these form complaints. The civil cover sheet identifies the tort as “professional negligence,” which is inapplicable based on the facts provided. The “statement” effectively alleges that Defendant’s employee pushed on Plaintiff’s window while Plaintiff was naked, resulting in Plaintiff falling. In total, the complaint is unintelligible and ambiguous. The Court sustains the demurrer.

CONCLUSION

Defendant MKM Investments Operation LLC’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED, with 30 days leave to amend.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.