Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23STCV11905, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11905    Hearing Date: December 8, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

DEMURRER

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on the demurrer; however, plaintiff must appear to address the OSC Re Sanctions for failing to appear.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required to argue the demurrer, but not the OSC Re Sanctions.  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: 

Cintarius Jamal Davis (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, brings this action against the Burbank Police Department (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges he was arrested and confined by Defendant and is seeking $60,000,000 in compensation. Defendant now demurs to the Complaint in its entirety, arguing it states no cognizable cause of action. Plaintiff has rendered no opposition.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

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

Plaintiff’s Complaint is reproduced below in its entirety:

This letter serves as a complaint from Cintarius Davis to the Burbank Police Department. Cintarius Davis is requesting the release of information and compensation regarding his confinement and arrest by the Burbank Police Department in violation of his civil rights. The plaintiff is seeking monetary compensation for $60,000,000.00 for false arrests, unreasonable search of his home, wrongful detention, and false imprisonment. The plaintiff was not made aware of the incidents leading to his arrest nor was he able to retrieve information regarding the footage of his arrest from the defendant

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 that which is ambiguous and unintelligible. (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.)

Further, a complaint must “set forth the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.)

Defendant argues the Complaint does not set forth sufficient facts to state a cause of action. Defendant further argues it is uncertain from the brief allegations what Plaintiff’s causes of action are intended to be. Defendant’s counsel submits that they attempted to address these issues in meet and confer communications. (Aguado Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant explains that while they do have record of Plaintiff’s arrest in 2022, they are not sure whether this action is in reference to that arrest. (Aguado Decl. ¶ 4.) When Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff to explain the issues, Plaintiff responded by threatening to kill Defendant’s counsel. (Aguado Decl. ¶5.)  

The Court finds the Complaint does not state a cognizable cause of action or sufficient facts. While Plaintiff seems to allege a violation of his civil rights, he does not identify which rights these are or how they were violated. The Court does find it is possible Plaintiff could amend to add such facts. As such, the demurrer to 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 

Burbank Police Department’s Demurrer came on regularly for hearing on December 8, 2023, 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 IS SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IS CONTINUED TO JANUARY 3, 2024 AT 9:00 A.M. 

DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  December 8, 2023                          _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles