Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Cotti Foods California, Inc. (erroneously sued as Wendy’s) 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Hunter “Milo Senaca” Nation 

 

BACKGROUND 

This claim arises from a failed application for a job at Wendy’s.  On some unknown date, Plaintiff Hunter Nation applied for an unknown position at a Wendy’s location.  Plaintiff alleges the location displayed a “Now Hiring” banner outside, and that the manager told him to apply then return in person once the application was complete.  Plaintiff alleges he submitted an application but was never contacted by Wendy’s for an interview.  Plaintiff alleges that “[a]dvertising a job with a banner outside of the building … then proceeding to never respond to the application for over a month is subject to CA Code Title 16 Sec. 1881(m).”  As a result of Defendant’s actions (or apparent inaction), Plaintiff alleges a claim for general negligence and seeks damages in the amount of $3.9 trillion.      

This hearing is on Defendant Cotti Foods California Inc.’s demurrer to the complaint.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege how Defendant’s conduct violated any law; how he suffered any damages; how any damage he allegedly suffered was due to Defendant’s conduct; and how Defendant’s conduct allegedly resulted in $3.9 trillion in damages.  As of the posting of this tentative ruling, no opposition has been filed.   

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).)¿ Defendant submits the declaration of Daniel De La Cruz attesting that counsel sent a meet and confer e-mail to Plaintiff, and attempted to meet and confer by phone but was met with unintelligible responses by Plaintiff including “You did not just call me an idiot;” “…that did not just happen”, and “(guess who is trying to leave the country).”  The Court finds Defendant has satisfied its meet and confer obligations.   

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 

The complaint fails to allege facts that would support a cause of action for negligence.  Plaintiff claims he applied for a job with Defendant based on a “now hiring” banner but he was never contacted for an interview.  These facts do not support a claim for general negligence.   

In order to state a claim for negligence, Plaintiff must allege (1) the existence of a legal duty of care, (2) breach of that duty and (3) proximate cause resulting in an injury.  (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.)  Plaintiff does not allege what duty Defendant owed to him, how Defendant breached that duty, and how that breach proximately caused any injury to him, much less an injury amounting to $3.9 trillion in damages. 

Plaintiff’s citation to “CA Code Title 16 Sec. 1881(m)” does not save his claim.  Causes of action that are statutory must be pled with particularity.  (See Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795; Covenant Care Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790.)  Here, Plaintiff has hardly alleged any facts, let alone sufficient facts to satisfy a particularity requirement.  In any event, if Plaintiff is referring to Cal. Code Reg. Tit. 16 section 1881(m), the regulation applies specifically to licensed clinical social workers, not to restaurant franchises.            

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer without leave to amend.  Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that he can successfully amend his complaint as he has not even filed an opposition.  

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: May 24, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court