Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a car accident.  Plaintiff Payton McGaffigan was a passenger in a car driven by cross-defendant Mia Sousa.  Plaintiff alleges Defendant Michael Aaron Chiu made an unsafe left turn in front of Plaintiff’s car causing the two cars to collide, injuring Plaintiff.  Chiu filed a cross-complaint naming Sousa as a Cross-Defendant, claiming she contributed to the accident.   

Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance Company insured Plaintiff.  USAA was not named in the original complaint, but Plaintiff filed an amendment to the company, substituting USAA for Doe 1.   

The operative complaint alleges two causes of action for (1) negligence and (2) statutory liability.  There are no allegations in the Complaint as to Plaintiff’s relationship with USAA.  The Complaint does not specifically allege that Plaintiff had an insurance policy with USAA, and how USAA breached the policy.  Indeed, Plaintiff has not filed a claim for breach of contract.   

This hearing is on USAA’s demurrer to the complaint.  USAA argues it cannot be named as a defendant in a “third party personal injury action in which no contractual relationship and/or privity of contract is alleged on the face of the complaint between Plaintiff and USAA.”   

JUDICIAL NOTICE 

USAA seeks judicial notice of the Complaint.  In turn, Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of the Complaint, the Cross-Complaint, the Cross-Complainants’ ROE Amendment to Cross-Complaint, and Plaintiff’s DOE Amendment substituting USAA as DOE 1.  The Court denies both parties’ request.  It is not necessary to seek judicial notice of pleadings filed in this case.  All that is necessary is to call the Court’s attention to the pleading.   

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).)  USAA filed the Declaration of Brad M. Elder, who attests the parties exchanged emails and defense counsel called Plaintiff’s counsel on November 22, 2024 to further discuss the grounds for the demurrer, but Plaintiff’s counsel did not call back or respond further to defense counsel’s emails.  On these facts, the Court concludes USAA has met its meet and confer obligations under Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(3).   

LEGAL STANDARD 

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).) The allegations in the complaint as a whole must be reviewed to determine whether a set of alleged facts constitutes a cause of action.¿(People v. Superior Court (Cahuenga's the Spot)¿(2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1376.)¿A complaint need only meet fact-pleading requirements, which requires a statement of facts constituting a cause of action in ordinary¿and concise language, and should allege ultimate facts that, as a whole, apprise defendant of the factual basis of the claim. (Code Civ. Proc., §425.10(a)(1);¿Navarrete v. Meyer¿(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.) 

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.) 

A demurrer on the ground of uncertainty is disfavored and should be sustained only when the complaint is so incomprehensible that the defendant cannot reasonably respond since ambiguities may be clarified in discovery.¿(Lickiss v. Financial indus. Regulatory Auth.¿(2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)  Uncertain allegations should be liberally construed in testing a complaint for adequacy against a demurrer, particularly when the facts that are uncertain are presumptively within the defendant’s knowledge.¿(Childs v. State¿(1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 155, 160.)¿The particularity requirement in a pleading depends on the extent to which the defendant, in fairness, needs detailed information the plaintiff can conveniently provide, while less particularity is required when the defendant is assumed to have the knowledge. (Doheny Park Terrance Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exch.¿(2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099.) 

In ruling on a demurrer, the court is guided by the following long-settled rules: The court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. ¿The court may also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. Further, the court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. (Blank v. Kirwan¿(1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 

Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend¿must 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). 

DISCUSSION 

USAA argues that Plaintiff’s claim for negligence and statutory liability does not apply to USAA, and there are no allegations in the Complaint about Plaintiff’s policy with USAA or how USAA breached that policy.  The Court agrees. 

The Complaint fails to allege any basis for liability against USAA.  USAA was not responsible for the car accident, so it cannot be sued for negligence or statutory liability.  USAA’s only role in this accident was that it insured Plaintiff.  But the Complaint does not allege the terms of the insurance policy or how USAA breached the policy.  Indeed, there are no breach of contract claims in the Complaint.  Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer to the Complaint with 20 days’ leave to amend.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court SUSTAINS USAA’s demurrer to the Complaint with 20 days’ leave to amend.  

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: May 13, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court