Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV11827, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11827    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: 68

Gurkirn Hundal v. Knowles Security Inc., Case No. 22STCV11827

Tentative Ruling: (1) Demurrer and (2) Motion to Strike

Plaintiff Gurkirn Hundal (Plaintiff) filed this action against several Defendants, including Defendants Knowles Security, Inc., Jose Sandin, and Joe Zuniga (Defendants).  Using Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-001, the Personal Injury form, Plaintiff purports to plead causes of action identified as “General Negligence.”  (SAC ¶ 10.b.)  There are two causes of action.  The causes of action arise out of events that took place “before, on and after April 2, 2022” and “before, on and after May 12, 2022.”  Defendants “negligently failed to properly treat and provide reasonable security to Plaintiff” with respect to the events that took place “before, on or after” those two dates.

The Second Amended Complaint is very unclear regarding the liability creating acts or omissions of Defendants Knowles Security, Inc., Jose Sandin, and Joe Zuniga.

Plaintiff alleges that she is a companion of the resident at 451 S. Main Street, Los Angeles CA.  Apparently on (or near) April 2, 2022 and May 12, 2022 there were “physical threats, burglary attempts, threats of murder, and heavy human traffic with possibility of criminal activities by resident Valarie Sosa…” and her guests.  A guest “brandished a semi-automatic firearm at plaintiff’s companion and pointed the firearm at the plaintiff’s head.”  Valerie Sosa sprayed mace at the plaintiff.

Defendants are mentioned in the SAC as “engaging cooperatively with Ruben Islas, The Rosslyn Lofts Housing Partners” and others.  But the involvement of Defendants in the alleged wrongs of others mentioned in the complaint is left to the imagination.

Procedural

This action was originally filed by Plaintiff on April 7, 2022. Defendants filed a Demurrer with Motion to Strike on June 20, 2022.  It was sustained with leave to amend. A Second Amended Complaint for damages for negligence was filed by Plaintiffs on August 19, 2022. Defendants filed another Demurrer with Motion to Strike which is now before the Court.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the demurrer or the motion to strike

Defendants demur to the two causes of action in the Second Amended Complaint on the grounds that the Plaintiff fails to state sufficient causes of action as to negligence.

The Demurrer

“A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Id.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend should be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.) However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).

Causes of Action for General Negligence

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to show the elements of negligence.

To sustain a claim of negligence, a plaintiff “must allege (1) the defendant’s legal duty of care toward the plaintiff, (2) the defendant’s breach of that duty, (3) injury to the plaintiff as a proximate result of the breach, and (4) damage to the plaintiff.” (Jones v. Grewe (1987), 189 Cal.App.3d 950, 954; see also Free v. Republic Ins. Co. (1992), 8 Cal.App.4th 1726, 1731; and Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001), 26 Cal.4th 465, 477).

The Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff does not appear to allege any facts showing that Defendants had a duty to Plaintiff.  Nor are there any allegations that show that Defendants breached such a duty. Plaintiff fails to specifically plead how Defendants were negligent.  Indeed, the involvement of Defendants is most unclear.

Thus, because Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute causes of action for negligence, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer as to the two causes of action for negligence.  Because the Complaint is so vague and confusing, the Court cannot say at this point that Plaintiff is incapable of pleading a valid claim.  Therefore with leave to amend shall be granted.  However, Plaintiff must plead fact which, if proven, would entitle Plaintiff to recover.

The 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. (Id., § 436(b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Id. § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id. § 437.)

1. Punitive Damages

Defendants request that the Court strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages from the Second Amended Complaint.  Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint includes a request for punitive damages. This Court previously ordered that the portion of Plaintiff’s complaint requesting punitive damages be stricken. (Aug. 1, 2022 Ruling.)  The causes of action are identified as being based on “general negligence.”  Negligence will not support an award of punitive damages.  Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to strike punitive damages.

2. Stated Amount of Damages

Defendants request that the Court strike the specific amount of damages stated in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

A complaint for personal injury or wrongful death may not state the amount of damages sought. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 425.10(b)). Civ. Proc. Code, § 425.10(b) prohibits a personal injury plaintiff from stating in the complaint the amount of damages claimed in order to protect defendants in these actions from adverse publicity resulting from inflated damage claims. (Plotitsa v. Superior Court (1983), 140 Cal.App. 3d 755). If the demand for relief improperly alleges the nature or amount of damages in a superior court personal injury or death action that is not a limited civil case, the complaint may be subject to a motion to strike, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 436.

Here, Plaintiff requested damages in the amount of $4,525,000.00 in Paragraph 14(a)(2) of the Second Amended Complaint. It was improper for Plaintiff to do so.  Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to strike the stated amount of damages. Plaintiff must amend the complaint.

3. Sanctions

Defendants request that the Court impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,500 against Plaintiff pursuant to Cal. CCP § 177.5 for failure to strike the punitive damages request from Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint after this Court ordered Plaintiff to strike it. That section of the CCP gives the Court the power to impose monetary sanctions for “any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification.” (CCP § 177.5.)

Plaintiff was granted leave to amend.  As such, the Court shall not sanction Plaintiff, a self-represented party, for repleading and again attempting to allege fact that would support an award of punitive damages.  The request for sanctions is DENIED.

Conclusion

The Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

The Motion to Strike is GRANTED as to the punitive damage claim and as to the amount of damages claimed.  If a claim is properly pleaded which might support an award of punitive damages is properly alleged Plaintiff may also plead a factual basis for an award of punitive damages.  Leave to amend and plead punitive damages is GRANTED with 20 days leave to amend.

The Request for Sanctions is DENIED.