Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Vargas Godinez vs. Golden Eagle Distributing Corporation, Date: 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

A)  Echo Incorporated Demurrer

Defendant Echo Incorporated’s (“Echo” individually) unopposed Demurrer to plaintiff Jose Raul Vargas Godinez’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint is SUSTAINED.

A demurrer challenges the defects appearing on the face of the pleading or from other matters properly subject to judicial notice.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)  The issue is the sufficiency of the pleading, not the truth of the facts alleged.  Thus, no matter how unlikely or improbable, the allegations made must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer.  (Del E. Webb Corporation v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.)  Absent court orders or other items subject to judicial notice, or items attached as exhibits to the complaint, the court may not consider the contents of pleadings or other exhibits when ruling on a demurrer.  (Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal.3d 904, 914;  Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1746, 1749.)

“In our examination of the complaint we are guided by the well settled principles governing the testing of its sufficiency by demurrer: A demurrer admits all material and issuable facts properly pleaded. [Citations omitted.]  However, it does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged therein. [Citations omitted.]”  (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 666, 672.)

Under Section 430.10(e) the test is whether the complaint states any valid claim entitling plaintiff to relief, even if Plaintiff’s cause of action is improperly titled, or an improper remedy is stated.  (Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38.)

“ ‘ “[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” [Citations.] “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.” ‘ “   (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal. App. 5th 677, 695.)

Echo demurs to each of the eight causes of action in the Complaint pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code §§ 430.10(e) and (f).  In reviewing the Complaint, the court finds Plaintiff failed to plead virtually any facts.  The Complaint is little more than deductions or conclusions of fact or law that do not support overcoming a demurrer.  There are no specific allegations against Echo, other than it is defendant Golden Eagle Distributing Corporation’s (“GED” individually; “Defendants” with Echo) parent company.  There are also statements as to “Defendant Klein,” yet there is no such defendant, nor is “Klein” identified in any other manner.

Given the Complaint does little more than restate various laws with no actual facts, the Demurrer under both Civ. Proc. Code §§ 430.10(e) and (f) is proper.

The court also notes Orange County does not appear to the proper venue for this action as Defendants are based in Placer County (Complaint ¶ 2), Plaintiff was a resident of Placer County during the event(s) associated with his limited allegations (Complaint ¶ 1), this is an FEHA matter, and venue cannot be solely based on Plaintiff’s current residence.  (Gov't Code § 12965(c)(3); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Superior Ct. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 306, 308 and 310.)  Parties should come to the hearing prepared to discuss this issue.

Echo’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED.

B)  Echo Incorporated Motion to Strike

Echo’s unopposed Motion to Strike (“MTS”) is GRANTED

While the court usually rules such a motion is moot if a demurrer to an entire complaint has been sustained, the court again needs to point out Plaintiff alleged virtually no facts against either defendant, let alone the necessary level of specific facts needed to support punitive damages under Civ. Code § 3294. 

The MTS is GRANTED.

C)   Golden Eagle Distributing Corporation Demurrer

Defendant GED’s unopposed Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED.

Though GED only demurs to COA Nos. 3 and 4 pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code §§ 430.10(e) and (f), the same issues with the Complaint that are present with Echo exist for GED.

GED’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED.

Plaintiff is given leave to file a first amended complaint within 10-days of written notice of the court’s ruling.  (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1320(g).)

Defendants to give notice.