Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22STCV33251, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33251    Hearing Date: February 2, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

DEMURRER

MP:     Holiday Stay Hotel, LLC (Defendant)

RP:     None

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS:

On October 11, 2022, Lachica Ousley (Plaintiff) filed suit against Holiday Stay, LLC (erroneously sued and served as Holiday Inn Express) (Defendant) and Sherri Woodworth (collectively Defendants) in connection with injuries allegedly incurred at Defendants’ hotel. Plaintiff claims that she and her daughter were injured by a treadmill in the Defendants’ hotel gym on July 21, 2021.  

On July 7, 2023, the Court sustained a demurrer brought by Holiday Stay. The Court found that Plaintiff’s Complaint did not sufficiently identify any cognizable causes of action to which Holiday Stay could reply. The Court found that leave to amend was appropriate as there had been no prior demurrers in this action.

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (FAC) was rejected by the Clerk of the Court for failure to include a case number. Plaintiff subsequently sought leave of the Court to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

Defendants now demur to the entirety of Plaintiff’s SAC as uncertain, arguing the SAC still fails to identify any causes of action. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to this motion. The Court notes that some correspondence was filed by Plaintiff on January 24, 2024, but none of the documents included in that correspondence purport to be an opposition to Defendants’ demurrer.  

ANALYSIS:

I.                    LEGAL STANDARDS

The grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters. (C.C.P. § 430.30(a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318.) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Id.)

A demurrer assumes the truth of all factual, material allegations properly pled in the challenged pleading. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.) No matter how unlikely or improbable, the plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.  App. 3d 593, 604.) But this does not include contentions; deductions; conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice.  (Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at 318.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) §§ 430.10(e) and (f), the party against whom a complaint has been filed may demur to the pleading on the grounds that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or that the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous and/or unintelligible. It is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable probability that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1074, 1082.)

II.                 MERITS

Meet and Confer

C.C.P. §§ 430.41(a) and 435.5(a) requires that the moving party meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the demurrer and/or motion to strike. Upon review the Court finds the meet and confer requirements were met. (Brustkern Decl. ¶¶ 2-8.)

Demurrer

The Court finds the SAC does not cure the defects of Plaintiff’s Complaint with respect to the uncertainty of the pleadings. 

A demurrer hearing is concerned only with whether the complaint, as it stands, regardless of extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) Uncertainty is defined as ambiguous and unintelligible by C.C.P. § 430.10. A demurrer for uncertainty should be granted “if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.)

The first page of Plaintiff’s SAC presents a handwritten section which does not designate any causes of action by number or do anything otherwise to separate them. Further, the section appears to also incorporate requests for damages in the middle of various phrases which might indicate causes of action. In short, the Court finds this section does not sufficiently state cognizable causes of action to which Holiday Stay can reply.

Plaintiff’s SAC is accompanied by several handwritten pages which similarly do not identify any particular causes of action. Plaintiff’s attachment explains at length her motivations behind bringing this action and her interactions with an attorney she attempted to retain in this matter. The Court notes that Plaintiff has represented herself before this Court in pro per through the duration of this action. Nowhere in the substance of Plaintiff’s SAC does she allege facts speaking to legally cognizable causes of action.

The Court further notes that while Plaintiff’s Complaint contained some facts about the accident which appears to be the gravamen of her action, these facts are absent from the SAC. It is unclear from Plaintiff’s attachments whether she intended to incorporate any of these facts.

As stated in Fistes Corp., when a defendant cannot reasonably respond due to the inability to comprehend the complaint, a demurrer for uncertainty should be granted. Here, Plaintiff’s SAC remains entirely uncertain. Defendants cannot be reasonably expected to respond to a complaint which states no causes of action and which largely consists of facts entirely unrelated to the supposed purpose of this case.

Leave to Amend

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy¿(1976), 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) While under California law leave to amend is liberally granted, “leave to amend should not be granted where, in all probability, amendment would be futile.” (Vaillette v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (1993), 18 Cal. App. 4th 680, 685).¿ “A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it sustains a demurrer without¿leave to amend¿if either (a) the facts and the nature of the claims are clear and no liability exists, or (b) it is probable from the nature of the defects and previous unsuccessful attempts to plead that the plaintiff cannot state a claim.” (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.¿(1992)¿4 Cal.App.4th 857, 889.)¿¿ 

While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff has now had the opportunity to address the defects of her Complaint and failed to do so, there remains a reasonable possibility that she could amend to state a cognizable claim. The Court urges Plaintiff to carefully consider which legal causes of action she wishes to bring and to state factual allegations speaking to each of them. Failure to do so upon further amendment may result in the granting of a demurrer without leave to amend, effectively disposing of the case.

Accordingly, the demurrer against the complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Holiday Stay Hotel, LLC’s Demurrer without Motion to Strike came on regularly for hearing on February 2, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT IS SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

AS PREVIOUSLY NOTICED BY THE COURT, THIS MATTER IS TRANSFERRED TO ALHAMBRA DEPARTMENT V FOR ALL PURPOSES.   ALL EXISTING DATES REMAIN.

DEFENDANT HOLIDAY STAY TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE:  February 2, 2024                              

_______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles