Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV35509, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35509    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Huang’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint

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

BACKGROUND

On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff Colin-Kirk B Hodge (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Edwyn Charles Huang (“Defendant”) for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence.

On December 9, 2022, Defendant filed a Demurrer to be heard on January 24, 2023.

Trial is scheduled for January 8, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

            Defendant Huang demurs to the first through seventh causes of action of the First Amended Complaint for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a cause of action, and uncertainty under CCP § 430.10(a), (e), and (f).

LEGAL STANDARD

Meet and Confer 

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading sought to demurred to, in person or telephonically, for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.  (See CCP § 430.41.)

Demurrer 

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, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

“Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof, but this time limitation shall not apply to motions specified in subdivision (e).” (CCP § 435(b)(1), italics added.) “A notice of motion to strike must be given within the time allowed to plead, and if a demurrer is interposed, concurrently therewith, and must be noticed for hearing and heard at the same time as the demurrer.” (CRC 3.1322(b), italic added.) “The defendant shall answer the amendments, or the complaint as amended, within 30 days after service thereof, or such other time as the court may direct, and judgment by default may be entered upon failure to answer, as in other cases.” (CCP § 471.5(a).)

“‘When one of two states related to a case has a legitimate interest in the application of its law and policy and the other has none, there is no real problem; clearly the law of the interested state should be applied.” (Hernandez v. Burger (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 795, 799. “[W]ith respect to regulating or affecting conduct within its borders, the place of the wrong has the predominant interest.”] (Id. at p. 802.))

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer 

Defendant has not presented any evidence to indicate whether any meet and confer was conducted before filing the instant Demurrer. But, Plaintiff has not objected regarding the lack of meet and confer either. Accordingly, the Court will still rule upon the merits of the Demurrer, but admonishes the parties that the failure to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure in the future may result in hearings being taken off calendar.

Analysis – First Through Fourth Causes of Action

With respect to the first through fourth causes of action for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence, respectively, Defendant contends that the Court already previously ruled that Taiwanese law applies to this case, but Plaintiff has restated these causes of action in direct conflict with the Court’s ruling on these causes of action. (Minute Order (1/24/2023.) Plaintiff does not address this argument in his opposition. The Court agrees that these causes of action do not apply to this case because they are not Taiwanese law, which the Court previously determined is the applicable substantive law in this action. Accordingly, the Court sustains the Demurrer to the first through fourth causes of action without leave to amend.

Analysis – Fifth Through Seventh Causes of Action

            Defendant also contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this action. While there may be personal jurisdiction, that is the not the same as subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant contends that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a Taiwanese Tort for an incident that occurred in Taipei. Defendant cites to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004) 542 U.S. 692 to support these arguments.

            In opposition, Plaintiff cites to various cases and statutes to indicate that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. (See, e.g., Dale v. Dale (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1177-1178 [“The superior court has subject matter jurisdiction over a tort action where the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.”]; A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Competency), Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 3-A [“Each superior court has general subject matter jurisdiction, meaning that it can adjudicate any and all cases brought before it”] [italics in original]; (Hernandez v. Burger (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 795, 799 [affirming judgment for plaintiff in personal injury action brought by Mexican resident against California resident arising from automobile accident in Mexico subject to Mexican law]; Victor v. Sperry (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 518, 524 [affirming judgment for personal injury lawsuit arising from auto accident that occurred in Mexico and adjudicated under Mexican law in San Diego County Superior Court].)

            The Court agrees with Plaintiff. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, even though the incident occurred outside of California. Plaintiff is a citizen of California suing Defendant, a resident of Los Angeles County. The cases of Hernandez and Victor are on point, in that they address this very issue of adjudicating causes of action that arose outside of California.

Defendant’s Demurrer provides virtually no legal authority to support his arguments, citing only to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sosa. This is unpersuasive, as that action involved a Mexican national suing the United States in federal court under the Foreign Tort Claims Act and Alien Tort Statute. (Sosa, supra, 542 U.S. at p. 692.) Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing power authorized only by the Constitution or statute. (Gunn v. Minton (2013) 568 U.S. 251, 256.) California Superior Courts, on the other hand, are courts of general subject matter jurisdiction and can hear virtually any case brought before them. (Long v. Forty Niners Football Co., LLC (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 550, 556 fn. 7.) Defendant has presented nothing to show that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this action.

Accordingly, the Court overrules Defendant’s Demurrer as to the fifth through seventh causes of action of the FAC.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Huang’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the first through fourth causes of action of the First Amended Complaint.

Defendant Huang’s Demurrer is OVERRULED as to the fifth through seventh causes of action of the First Amended Complaint.

Defendant Huang is ordered to file an Answer to the First Amended Complaint within 10 days of the date of this order.

Defendant Huang is further ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five days.

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