Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Ruben Zadeh and Ammigee 1, LLC 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Ray T. Brown 

 

BACKGROUND 

This action stems from a landlord-tenant dispute which has been the subject of multiple lawsuits.  Despite being 15 pages long, the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is an disjointed and largely unintelligible word salad.  As best as the Court can discern, Plaintiff Ray T. Brown is alleging six claims: (1) fraud, (2) malicious prosecution, (2) illegal eviction, (4) breach of the implied warranty of habitability, (5) theft of security deposit, and (6) “violative ‘co-mingling’ of deposit proceeds.”  (Compl. at p. 323.)  Because of the unintelligible nature of the complaint, there is not much else the Court can say about these claims, including what facts support each claim and which causes of action are being asserted against either or both Defendants Ruben Zadeh and Amigee 1, LLC.     

This hearing is on Defendants Ruben Zadeh and Ammigee 1 LLC’s special and general demurrers to the complaint.  Defendants argue that the claims fail to state any causes of action.  Defendants further contend that the pleadings are “entirely incoherent,” “beyond ambiguous,” and “Defendants cannot make sense of how to answer them.”       

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Defendants seek judicial notice of three complaints and court orders dismissing the suits.  Defendants do not explain why they are seeking judicial notice of these documents, other than to argue that to the extent Plaintiff is attempting to relitigate issues that were already decided in other court proceedings, his claims would be subject to a demurrer on res judicata grounds.  But Defendants do not tie any issues addressed in the court orders they are asking the Court to judicially notice with any of the claims asserted in the SAC.  Accordingly, the Court denies their request for judicial notice.     

MEET AND CONFER¿ 

Code Civ. Proc. §430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (CCP § 430.41(a).)¿ The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (CCP § 430.41(a)(2).)¿ Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (CCP § 430.41(a)(3).)¿ Defendants submit the declaration of Jodi Rosner attesting that the parties met and conferred by letter and by phone.  The parties’ meet and confer efforts satisfy the requirements of §430.41. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.  (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 (in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents).)  For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)  

A demurrer to a complaint may be general or special.  A general demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint on the ground it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)  A special demurrer challenges other defects in the complaint, including whether a pleading is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)  The term uncertain includes the issue of whether the pleading is “ambiguous and unintelligible.”  (Id.)  A demurrer for uncertainty should be sustained if the complaint is drafted in such a manner that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., the defendant cannot determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts are directed against the defendant. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) 

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”); Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 (“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”).)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 

DISCUSSION 

Defendants’ general demurrer is conclusory and devoid of any analysis.  Defendants argue only that Plaintiff’s claims fail to state any cause of action.  There is no further arguments.  For this reason, the Court overrules Defendants’ general demurrer.   

As to Defendants’ special demurrer, the Court concludes it is appropriate given that the SAC is largely unintelligible.  It is unclear what facts support each cause of action, and to whom each count is directed.  A demurrer for uncertainty should be sustained if the complaint is drafted in such a manner that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., the defendant cannot determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts are directed against the defendant.  (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc., 14 Cal.App.4th at 616.)   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART and OVERRULES IN PART the demurrer with leave to amend.  Plaintiff has 20 days leave to amend.  Plaintiff’s amendment should include only the claims he is asserting, the facts that support each claim, and against which defendant each claim is being brought.  As this will be the third amendment to the complaint, any failure by Plaintiff to comply with this ruling will result in the Court sustaining a demurrer to a third amended complaint without leave to amend.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: May 4, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court