Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV11758, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV11758    Hearing Date: September 30, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On May 10, 2024, Plaintiff Kevin Massengale filed this action against Defendants Tangular Gray, David Kilgore, Lorraine Jimenez, and Analu Fernandini. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on July 24, 2024.

The FAC is pled on Judicial Council Form PLD-C-001 and asserts a cause of action for breach of contract. Plaintiff also alleges “Deprivation of constitutional protected rights, misrepresentation, force compelled association, involuntary servitude, Exiled in my own Native State.” The FAC seeks damages of two hundred million dollars. Plaintiff also filed a separate document titled “Amended Cause of Action,” which appears to be a part of his FAC.

            On August 20, 2024, Defendant Kilgore filed the instant demurrer to the FAC. Plaintiff filed his opposition on September 13, 2024.   

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether a pleading states a cause of action or defense. (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 pleading, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action or defense. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

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 Jedrzejek Decl.)

DISCUSSION

            The FAC, including the document “Amended Cause of Action,” is unintelligible and contains no facts supporting any cognizable cause of action. In his opposition, Plaintiff concedes the defects and requests leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant David Kilgore’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.