Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCP01460, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01460    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff Timothy Lucky filed a complaint “regarding a defective vehicle, late vehicle registration, breach of agreement, personal injury, unlawful business practices, forced entry into my bank account and other damages.”

In the initial complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he rented a vehicle from Defendant on February 6, 2020. Plaintiff claims the vehicle was defective, and Defendant refused to swap the vehicle after being notified of a near collision. On an unspecified date, Plaintiff was allegedly stranded with a defective tire and no vehicle registration. Plaintiff appears to allege that during this incident, his belongings were stolen from the vehicle after paramedics and police came to assist him. On April 24, 2020, Plaintiff claims he was injured while exiting the defective vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that multiple breaches of contract left him stranded and injured. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “illegally forced an authorization in to my bank account for about $2500 that was immediately reversed by the J.P. Morgan.” Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered an injury on March 22, 2022 after falling at the Los Angeles Film School.

On May 23, 2022, Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint in its entirety for uncertainty and failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. On July 1, 2022, the Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, finding the complaint devoid of facts to support a cause of action. On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “reformatted filing of negligence” which appears to serve as his First Amended Complaint.   

LEGAL STANDARD

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (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. (Ibid.) 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, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

A demurrer for uncertainty is granted “if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) Usually, a complaint does not need to be a “model of clarity” to survive a demurrer because most ambiguities can be clarified through discovery. (Ibid.)

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.) The Court notes that Defendant has complied with the meet and confer requirement. (See Johnson Decl. ¶ 4.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff appears to assert six causes of action for negligence arising from: (1) defective vehicle; (2) late vehicle registration; (3) breach of agreement; (4) personal injury; (5) unlawful business practices; and (6) forced authorization into bank account. (FAC 3:17-25.) However, the 50-page filing contains long block paragraphs, photos, and screenshots, with no discernable statement of facts supporting the purported causes of action, nor articulating any breach of a duty of care. Thus, the complaint does not contain sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e).) The complaint is also “ambiguous and unintelligible.” (Id., § 430.10(f).) Plaintiff’s 80-page opposition to the demurrer is equally unclear.  It also violates page limits. (See Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1113(d).)  

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.