Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Hunter Nation is appearing in pro per.  His complaint is not a model of clarity.  Plaintiff sued “Samsung Group” but served his complaint on Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”).  The civil case cover sheet indicates Plaintiff’s claim is for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  But the Complaint consists of one paragraph with no defined cause of action.  

Plaintiff claims that “Samsung Group had an obligation to proceed with business after contacting me via notification and following my personal account from its Samsung Mobile USA account.”  But there is no allegation as to what “business” he is referring to or the source of the “obligation to respond.”  Plaintiff does not say what this “obligation” consists of or when or how it arose.  Plaintiff alleges this undefined obligation was breached, but he does not explain how it was breached.  Plaintiff also claims this breach caused emotional damages as he “was then assaulted by relatives,” financial damages as he “still do[es] not have funding,” and “physical” damages as he is currently homeless.  He demands damages in the amount of “$100 trillion U.S.D.”  

This hearing is on Samsung’s demurrer to the complaint.  Samsung argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege the essential elements of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, including that Samsung’s conduct was outrageous, Samsung intended to cause emotional distress, Plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress and Samsung’s actions proximately caused Plaintiff’s alleged harm.  Plaintiff filed an incomprehensible opposition which fails to address Samsung’s substantive arguments but instead attacks its counsel for committing perjury and other misdeeds.         

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 means “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.) 

MEET AND CONFER 

Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41 requires that before the filing of a demurrer the moving 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.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a).)  The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(2).)  Thereafter, the moving party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(3).)  Defendant submits the Declaration of Jonathan Goldstein, which shows the parties met and conferred by telephone on September 6, 2023, more than five days before the demurrer was filed.  This satisfies the meet and confer requirements of § 430.41.   

DISCUSSION 

Samsung argues Plaintiff has failed to allege all essential elements of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Court agrees. 

The elements of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress are that: (1) defendant engaged in “extreme and outrageous conduct with the intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, severe emotional distress to the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff actually suffered severe or extreme emotional distress, and (3) the outrageous conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the emotional distress.”  (Ross v. Creel Printing Publishing Company (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 736, 744-45.)   

“A defendant’s conduct is outrageous when it is so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.”  (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-51.)  This is a “high bar.”  (Id. at 1051.)  To avoid a demurrer, the plaintiff must allege with “great specificity” the actions that are so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized society.  (Schlauch v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 926, 936.)   

Here, Plaintiff alleges no conduct that is extreme and outrageous.  All he alleges is that “Samsung Group” did not proceed with some unspecified business after “contacting [him] via notification and following his personal account.”  “[T]he termination of a business relationship is, as a matter of law, not the type of outrageous conduct that is required to support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”  (Unterberger v. Red Bull N. Am. Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 414, 423.) 

Plaintiff also fails to allege intent.  “The tort calls for intentional, or at least reckless conduct--conduct intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.”  (Ess v. Eskaton Properties Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 120, 130.)  To be intentional, the conduct must be “especially calculated to cause mental distress of a very serious kind.”  (Id.)  The Complaint alleges nothing showing that Samsung’s alleged breach of the undefined obligation was “intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.”  (Hughes, 46 Cal.4th at 1050-51.) 

The Complaint also fails to allege that Plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress.  “Severe emotional distress means emotional distress of such substantial quality or enduring quality that no reasonable person in civilized society should be expected to endure it.”  (Hughes, 46 Cal.4th at 1051.)  Plaintiff alleges only that “damages are emotional” without pleading that any alleged emotional distress was severe or extreme.   

Plaintiff also does not allege actual or proximate cause.  There is no allegation that Samsung’s breach of the unspecified obligation actually or proximately caused Plaintiff’s alleged emotional damages.     

For the foregoing reasons, the Court sustains the demurrer.  As Plaintiff has the burden of showing there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment and he has failed to make such a showing (and indeed, his “opposition” does not even ask for an opportunity to amend), the Court sustains the demurrer without leave to amend.   

 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer without leave to amend.   

 

DATED:  January 29, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court