Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 23GDCV00306, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV00306 Hearing Date: September 8, 2023 Dept: E
Case No: 23GDC00306
Hearing Date: 09/08/2023 – 11:00am
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: BRIAN WHITAKER v. GOLDEN GRAIN BAKE HOUSE
& CAFE, LLC, a California Limited Liability
[TENTATIVE RULING ON
DEMURRER]
The
Court notes that despite the fact that Defendant’s caption on its notice page
states, “Notice of Demurrer,” the Notice page itself simply states in relevant
part, “Defendant Golden Grain Bake House & Cafe, LLC will and hereby move
the Court for dismissal of the action.
II.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on 02/14/2023
alleging two causes of action against Defendant for: (1) Violation of the Unruh
Civil Rights Act (On behalf of Plaintiff and against all Defendants) Cal. Civ.
Code §51-53 and (2)Violation of the California Disabled Persons Act (On behalf
of Plaintiff and against all Defendants.) Cal. Civ. Code §54.1.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS FOR DEMURRERS
A. Demurrer – Sufficiency
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.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting
all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or
conclusions of fact or law ….” (Berkley
v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.)
In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of
the pleading or via proper judicial notice.
(Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968,
994.) A demurrer tests the pleadings
alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters; therefore, it lies only
where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially
noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30,
430.70.) 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.)
The general rule is that the plaintiff need only
allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts.
(Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) “All that is required of a plaintiff, as a
matter of pleading … is that his complaint set forth the essential facts of the
case with reasonable precision and with sufficient particularity to acquaint
the defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
(1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 156-157.)
On
demurrer, a trial court has an independent duty to “determine whether or not
the … complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any
legal theory.” (Das v. Bank of
America, N.A. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 727, 734.) Demurrers do not lie as to only parts of
causes of action, where some valid claim is alleged but “must dispose of an
entire cause of action to be sustained.”
(Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97,
119.) “Generally it is an abuse of
discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any
reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d
335, 349.)
B. Demurrer – Uncertainty
A special demurrer for uncertainty, CCP section
430.10(f), is disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so
bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine
what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are
directed against him/her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993)
14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Moreover, even if the pleading is somewhat
vague, “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.)
IV.
ANALYSIS
As a preliminary matter,
Defendant’s demurrer contains many arguments that Defendant doesn’t attempt to support
with legal citations.
Further, despite this allegedly
being a demurrer, and despite Defendant arguing that Plaintiff fails to state a
claim, Defendant does not once explain whether the various arguments asserted
in the demurrer apply to the first or second cause of action. Defendant makes
various arguments throughout its memorandum without explaining what arguments
those causes of action apply to. Further, despite arguing that Plaintiff fails
to state a claim, Defendant never once explains what the elements are to a
particular cause of action.
Since Defendant randomly
asserted arguments and made no indication as to what causes of action these
arguments applied to, the Court will simply address the arguments the Defendant
presented to the Court.
Under the Defendant’s
section titled, “Plaintiff’s Complaint is Vague,” Defendant first states:
The standing
required to pursue monetary relief under the Unruh Act is different from
standing to seek injunctive relief under federal or state law. Reycraft v.
Lee, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1211 (2009). Unlike the ADA, standing under the
Unruh Act is established “where a disabled plaintiff can show he or she
actually presented himself or herself to a business or public place with the
intent of purchasing its products or utilizing its services in the manner in
which those products and/or services are typically offered to the public and
was actually denied equal access on a particular occasion.” Reycraft,
177 Cal. App. 4th at 1224. See also Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican
Grill,Inc., 614 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 2010) (“On those visits when he was
not seeking to purchase food [from the Defendant] . . . [Plaintiff] cannot
recover money damages" under the Unruh Act.)
(Def. Mot. p.
4-5.)
Confusingly, after
reciting case law on standing, Defendant doesn’t actually argue that Plaintiff
didn’t sufficiently make the allegations required in Reycraft. However,
the Court notes that even if Defendant had argued that Plaintiff did not allege
standing under the Reycraft standard, Plaintiff did in fact sufficiently
allege facts according to the Reycraft
standard in ¶¶ 8-17 of the Complaint.
Defendant then
argues under the “Plaintiff’s Complaint is Vague” section that Plaintiff is
under a duty to allege, in layman’s terms, the barriers that denied him full
and equal access. Here, the Court notes that Defendant cited no legal support
for this assertion. Defendant then goes on to argue that there is no such
allegation in the Complaint. Here, the Defendant’s argument is unavailing. Plaintiff
made those allegations in ¶¶10-13 of the Complaint.
Defendant next argues
that the Complaint fails to provide facts sufficient to satisfy the
requirements of CCP § 425.50.
As a preliminary
matter, it is not entirely clear what subsections of § 425.50 Defendant is
arguing Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege. For example, Defendant cites to
425.50 (a)(1)-(2). CCP §425.50(a)(1)-(2) states:
(a) An
allegation of a construction-related accessibility claim in a complaint, as
defined in subdivision (a) of Section 55.52 of the Civil Code, shall state
facts sufficient to allow a reasonable person to identify the basis of the
violation or violations supporting the claim, including all of the following:
(1) A plain
language explanation of the specific access barrier or barriers the individual
encountered, or by which the individual alleges he or she was deterred, with
sufficient information about the location of the alleged barrier to enable a
reasonable person to identify the access barrier.
(2) The way
in which the barrier denied the individual full and equal use or access, or in
which it deterred the individual, on each particular occasion.
(CCP
§425.50(a)(1)-(2).)
Despite all the
language cited 425.50(a)(1)-(2), Defendant simply argues that Plaintiff fails
to allege his particular disability.
Defendant’s
argument is unavailing. Plaintiff alleged his disability in ¶1 of the
Complaint.
Further, even
though Defendant didn’t argue that Plaintiff didn’t allege the requirements of
425.50(a)(1)-(2), even if Defendant did make that argument, it is unavailing
because Plaintiff sufficiently alleged those elements in ¶¶1-18 of the
Complaint.
Additionally, on
page 7 of the demurrer, starting around line 5 and ending on page 8 around line
5, Defendant simply asks questions and makes assertions with no legal support. The
Court is not inclined to entertain those issues.
Defendant next
cites to CCP §425.50(4)(A)(ii)-(iv). Despite citing to § 425.50(4)(A)(ii),
Defendant does not appear to argue that Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege
this element. Defendant simply argues that Plaintiff didn’t allege
425.50(4)(A)(iii)-(iv). Here, Defendant’s arguments are unavailing. Plaintiff
alleged those elements in ¶¶23-28 of the Complaint.
Lastly, Defendant
has a section titled “Injunctive Relief.”
As a preliminary
matter, it is unclear what Defendant is requesting with respect to injunctive
relief. Injunctive relief is not a cause of action in the Complaint; therefore,
the Court is confused as to how Defendant could be arguing that sufficient
facts were not pled to allege a cause of action for injunctive relief.
If Defendant is
arguing that injunctive relief should be stricken, Defendant did not file a
motion to strike.
The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its
discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or
improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(a).) The court
may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in
conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 436(b).) A motion to strike cannot be based upon the
grounds that a complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action, but instead is properly based on grounds of superfluous or abusive
allegations, or improprieties in form or procedure. (Ferraro
v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509,
528-29.)
Defendant then makes several confusing arguments about intent
and that Plaintiff has no standing to bring this suit unless he alleges that he
genuinely intended to patronize the business.
Here, Defendant’s argument is unavailing based on the allegations
in ¶8 of the Complaint. Although Defendant argues that “tester” standing does
not confer standing, Defendant provides no legal support for this argument.
Further, even if Defendant did provide legal support for this argument, ¶8 does
not allege that Plaintiff was there solely as a “tester.”
Defendant’s Reply is equally unavailing.
V.
TENTATIVE
RULING
Defendant’s
demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.