Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV31572, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV31572 Hearing Date: March 27, 2025 Dept: 14
#10
Case Background
This is an action for a variety of complaints about the
California Department of Insurance (DEI) regarding Plaintiff’s salvage vehicle.
On December 27, 2023, Plaintiff Kimberly Payton filed
her Complaint against Defendant.
On January 15, 2025, Defendant filed a demurrer and
motion to strike.
Instant Pleading
Defendant demurs to the Complaint and moves to strike
Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages.
Decision
Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to
amend.
The motion to strike is GRANTED.
Discussion
Defendant demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that
(1) Plaintiff failed to meet the claims requirement of Gov. Code, section 910,
(2) Gov. Code, section 818.2 immunizes Defendant from discretionary law
enforcement activity, and (3) Plaintiff is not entitled to a writ of mandate.
Defendant also argues that the remainder of the Complaint fails to state a
claim against it because the Complaint does not identify any statute or
regulation requiring Defendant to conduct an investigation. Additionally, the
Complaint is too vague to state a cause of action against Defendant or put it
on notice of the nature of Plaintiff’s claims.
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that after Geico salvaged
her vehicle at only 44%, Defendant failed to answer her complaints, refused to
give her a case number, ignored her request for an ethics investigation, and
denied her Constitutional rights by allowing Geico to salvage her vehicle.
(Compl., ¶¶1-5.)
“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.) “The
objection of uncertainty does not go to the failure to allege sufficient
facts.” (Brea v. McGlashan (1934) 3 Cal.App.2d 454, 459.) “It goes to
the doubt as to what the pleader means by the facts alleged.” (Id.)
“Such a demurrer should not be sustained where the allegations of the complaint
are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues which he is to
meet.” (People v. Lim (1941) 18 Cal.2d 872, 882.)
Here, the Complaint alleges in a conclusory manner that
Defendant denied Plaintiff her Constitutional rights by ignoring her complaints
about Geico and allowing Geico to salvage her vehicle. However, the Complaint
fails to state what Constitutional right Defendant violated. Additionally,
nothing in the Complaint establishes that Defendant was required to investigate
Plaintiff’s complaints. The Complaint thus fails to provide sufficient facts to
apprise Defendant of the issues it is to meet. Therefore, the demurer is SUSTAINED.
The Court need not reach Defendant’s other arguments.
Motion to Strike
Defendant moves to strike
Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages, arguing that Gov. Code, section 818
provides that a public entity is not liable for punitive damages awarded under
section 3294. The Court agrees. Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED.
Leave to Amend
Plaintiff failed to oppose this
motion and therefore failed to request leave to amend. A court need not grant
leave to amend when the plaintiff has not requested leave to amend. (Thornton v
California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1423.)
Here, the Court declines to award Plaintiff leave to amend.
Conclusion
Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to
amend.
The motion to strike is GRANTED.