Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV35509, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35509    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Edwyn Charles Huang’s Demurrer

Having considered the moving papers, 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 requests the Court sustain the demurrer to the entire complaint for failure to state a cause of action.  

LEGAL STANDARD

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, 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 802.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant attacked Plaintiff while at a nightclub in Taipei, Taiwan. The complaint originally indicated that Defendant resides in Orange County, but parties later stipulated that Defendants resides in Los Angeles.

Defendant alleges that the Court has no jurisdiction over parties, despite the fact Defendant states both parties are residents of California. Defendant has also stipulated to residing in Los Angeles. This is sufficient to establish general jurisdiction over Defendant.

However, the Court agrees that California law is not the appropriate basis for Plaintiff to bring his claims. While both parties are residents of California, giving a basis for this Court to hear the case, all alleged causes of action took place in Taiwan. When one of two states related to a case has a legitimate interest in the application of its law, and the other has none, the interested state should be applied. Generally speaking, this is the place where the wrongdoing has occurred. Thus, Taiwanese law should be the basis on which Plaintiff brings his claims. The Court sustains the demurrer.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Edwyn Charles Huang’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED, with 30 days leave to amend.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

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