Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV10179, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10179    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

            Plaintiff alleges Defendants have designed, manufactured and sold defective windows, glass doors, and glass railings. 

            Defendant PRL Glass Systems, Inc. demurs to the Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant PRL Glass Systems, Inc.’s demurrer to the first through fifth causes of action is OVERRULED.  Defendant is ordered to answer the Complaint within 10 days.

ANALYSIS

Demurrer

Meet and Confer

            The Declaration of Celeste S. Del Rio reflects that Defendant’s counsel satisfied the meet and confer requirement set forth in Civ. Proc. Code, § 430.41.

Discussion

Defendant PRL Glass Systems, Inc. demurs to the Complaint as follows:

1.         First Cause of Action (Strict Liability); Second Cause of Action (Negligence); Third Cause of Action (Breach of Express Warranties); Fourth Cause of Action (Breach of Implied Warranties); Fifth Cause of Action (Negligence Per Se / Violation of Statute.

            Defendant argues that these causes of action are uncertain because Plaintiff does not allege when Defendant PRL Glass Systems, Inc.’s conduct or Plaintiff’s injuries occurred.

            A demurrer for uncertainty is properly sustained where the complaint is so vague or uncertain that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., when the defendant cannot determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts are directed against the defendant. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, ¶ 7:85.)  Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and strictly construed “because ambiguities can reasonably be clarified under modern rules of discovery.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

            Here, Plaintiff alleges in generalized terms that:

9. The windows, glass doors, and glass railings purchased and installed in the Plaintiff’s SUBJECT PROPERTY were defectively designed, constructed, manufactured and installed as set forth herein.  These defects resulted in damage to the SUBJECT PROPERTY, its systems and components thereto, and personal property and made it so the Plaintiff was forced to live in alternative housing before replacement was accomplished.

10. Plaintiff purchased windows, glass doors, and glass railings designed, manufactured, constructed and sold by Defendants.  These windows, glass railings, and glass doors had defects and leaked water, resulting in damage to Plaintiff’s products and SUBJECT PROPERTY, and were not sufficiently wind resistant. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DEFENDANTS have made continuing and ongoing repairs to the Plaintiff’s windows and SUBJECT PROPERTY to attempt to fix the problems.  Plaintiff has relied upon DEFENDANTS’ attempts to fix the problems.

     (Complaint, ¶¶ 9, 10.)

            No further details are provided in connection with each cause of action.

            Nonetheless, Defendant has sufficient information to fashion discovery responses to elicit the information it seeks as argued in the demurrer: when Defendant designed or manufactured the fixtures installed in Plaintiff’s residents, when these were purchased and installed, when the damages to property occurred and when they were discovered.

As such, the demurrer to the first through fifth causes of action is OVERRULED.  Defendant is ordered to answer the Complaint within 10 days.