Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV20252, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20252    Hearing Date: September 17, 2024    Dept: 76

            Plaintiffs alleges that co-workers made comments about him and when he reported it, he was “black balled from the company.”   

Defendant Universal Protection Service LP dba Allied Universal Protection Services moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Universal Protection Service LP dba Allied Universal Protection Services’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED as to the entire Complaint with 30 days’ leave to amend.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings

Request For Judicial Notice

            Defendant’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint filed in this action is GRANTED per Evid. Code, § 452(d)(court records).

Meet and Confer

            The Declaration of Michelle Patroni Green reflects that Defendant’s counsel satisfied the meet and confer requirement set forth in Civ. Proc. Code, § 439.

Discussion

Defendant Universal Protection Service LP dba Allied Universal Protection Services moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the Complaint. On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the same rules applicable on demurrer apply. (County of Orange v. Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 21, 32-33.)            “Presentation of extrinsic evidence is . . . not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)

“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70). The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action [citation].” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905 [200 Cal. Rptr. 497].)

(Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

            Defendant basically argues that the Complaint is uncertain because it does not identify any causes of action, nor does it demand a judgment.

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, the Complaint truly fails for uncertainty, as it cannot be ascertained what causes of action Plaintiff is asserting, nor what relief Plaintiff seeks.

            The motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED as to the entire Complaint with 30 days’ leave to amend.