Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01229109, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Consolidated Security Industries Inc.’s special demurrer to Plaintiff Rob Matheson’s Complaint, is sustained with 15 days leave to amend.

On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document entitled, “Plaintiff Rob Mathesons response to Defendants reply filed October 7, 2022.  Request in support of motion for court order allowing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint; memorandum of points and authorities.”  The court declines to consider this document.  The Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for filing a document after a reply has been filed.  Plaintiff did not seek prior leave of court to file the document. 

A special demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)  Errors and confusion created by “the inept pleader” are to be forgiven if the pleading contains sufficient facts entitling plaintiff to relief.  (Saunders v. Cariss (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 905, 908.)  A demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled if the facts are presumptively within defendant’s knowledge.  (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 616.)  A party attacking a pleading on “uncertainty” grounds must specify how and why the pleading is uncertain, and where that uncertainty can be found in the challenged pleading.  (Fenton v. Groveland Community Services Dept. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 797, 809, disapproved on other grounds in Katzberg v. Regents of the University of California (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300.)  A demurrer for uncertainty may lie if the failure to label the parties and claims renders the complaint so confusing defendant cannot tell what he or she is supposed to respond to. (See Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139.)

Here, Defendant contends that the Complaint violates California Rules of Court, rule 2.112, as there are no specific causes of action identified.  Rule 2.112 states:

Each separately stated cause of action, count, or defense must specifically state:

(1) Its number (e.g., “first cause of action”);

(2) Its nature (e.g., “for fraud”);

(3) The party asserting it if more than one party is represented on the pleading (e.g., “by plaintiff Jones”); and

(4) The party or parties to whom it is directed (e.g., “against defendant Smith”).

Failure to comply with Rule 2.112 renders a complaint subject to a motion to strike or a special demurrer for uncertainty. (See Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 996, 1014.)

Defendant’s demurrer has merit.  Plaintiff did not file any timely opposition to the demurrer.  Failure to oppose the demurrer may be construed as having abandoned the claims.  (See Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 1, 20.) Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained with 15 days leave to amend.

Defendant’s motion to strike is moot as a result of the ruling on the demurrer.  In the opposition to the motion to strike, Plaintiff emphasizes that he is not a lawyer and requests leave to amend.  Plaintiff failed to file a proof of service with his opposition to the motion to strike. 

Litigants who choose to represent themselves must be treated in the same manner as represented parties and must follow the correct rules of procedure. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.)  A self-represented litigant is not entitled to any greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Petrosyan v. Prince Corp. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 587, 594 [self-represented litigants are entitled to same treatment as represented parties].)

Defendant shall give notice of the ruling.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE