Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Jones v. Yale Navigation Center, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Demurrer to Complaint

Defendant PATH, erroneously sued as Yale Navigation Center, demurs to Plaintiff Lydell Jones’s Complaint. For the following reasons, Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED. Should Plaintiff desire to file an amended complaint addressing the issues in this ruling, Plaintiff must file and serve it within 30 days of service of notice of ruling.

Although the court is sympathetic to the efforts plaintiff, a pro per party, has expended in presenting his grievances, and fully recognizes the personal investment plaintiff has in his case, the court must treat a pro per party the same as a represented party, i.e., uniformly applying the procedural and substantive rules. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) “ ‘A litigant has a right to act as his own attorney [citation] “but, in so doing, should be restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is required of those qualified to practice law before our courts; otherwise, ignorance is unjustly rewarded.” [Citations.]’ ” (Doran v. Dreyer (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 289, 290.)

In ruling on a demurrer, a court must accept as true all allegations of fact contained in the complaint. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the affected pleading, not the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading or the pleader’s ability to prove those allegations. (Cundiff v. GTE Cal., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404-05.) Questions of fact cannot be decided on demurrer. (Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1556.) Because a demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the complaint, a court will not consider facts that have not been alleged in the complaint unless they may be reasonably inferred from the matters alleged or are proper subjects of judicial notice. (Hall v. Great W. Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 713, 718 n.7.)

“A 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.) Demurrers for uncertainty “are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) “[A] demurrer for uncertainty will not be sustained where the facts claimed to be uncertain or ambiguous are presumptively within the knowledge of the demurring party.” (Ching v. Dy Foon (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 129, 136.)

The Complaint does not contain substantive factual allegations sufficient to apprise Defendant of the claims against it. It is unclear which actions Plaintiff is complaining of and which individuals or entities are responsible. Although Plaintiff appears to have attached an amended complaint to his opposition to Defendant’s demurrer, Plaintiff did not properly file this pleading with the court. The demurrer is sustained.

Should Plaintiff desire to file an amended complaint addressing the issues in this ruling, Plaintiff must file and serve it within 30 days of service of notice of ruling.

Defendant to give notice.