Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 24STCV01611, Date: 2024-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01611    Hearing Date: October 12, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Elaine Chou’s and Sharon Chou’s unopposed demurrer to pro per Plaintiff Angelia Bradley’s complaint is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

          Defendants Elaine Chou (“Elaine”) and Sharon Chou’s (“Sharon”) (collectively, “Defendants”) demur unopposed to pro per Plaintiff Angelia Bradley’s (“Bradley”) (“Plaintiff”) complaint (“Complaint”).  (Notice of Demurrer, pg. 1.)

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer, the moving party must meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading to attempt to reach an agreement that would resolve the objections to the pleading and obviate the need for filing the demurrer.  (C.C.P. §430.41, emphasis added.)

Defendants’ counsel declares that on August 1, 2024, she attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the instant demurrer and left a voicemail, but never received a response.  (See Decl. of Movsessian ¶¶3, 5.)  Defendants’ counsel’s declaration is sufficient under C.C.P. §430.41.  Accordingly, the Court will consider Defendants’ demurrer.

          Background

          Plaintiff filed her operative one-page Complaint against Defendants on January 22, 2024, alleging twenty-eight causes of action.

          Defendants filed the instant demurrer on August 14, 2024.  As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

Summary of Demurrer

Defendants demur to the 1st through 28th causes of action on the basis each cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action against Defendants and is defectively uncertain.  (Demurrer, pgs. 3-11; C.C.P. §§430.10(e), (f).)

Legal Standard

“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.  (See Donabedian v. Mercury Insurance Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].)  For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law.  (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital District (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

Failure to State a Claim

Entire Complaint

A complaint, to be sufficient, must contain a statement of facts which, without the aid of other conjectured facts not stated, shows a complete cause of action.  (Going v. Dinwiddie (1890) 86 Cal. 633, 637; Hawkins v. Oakland Title Insurance & Guaranty Co. (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 116, 122.)

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of a single page that lists twenty-eight causes of action without a single factual allegation in support.  Plaintiff fails to allege a single element of any of the twenty-eight causes of action listed.

Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, and 28th causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

          Conclusion

Defendant’s unopposed demurrer to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, and 28th causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  October _____, 2024