Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV02373, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02373    Hearing Date: January 29, 2024    Dept: F49

Dept. F49

Date: 1-29-24

Case # 23CHCV02373

Trial Date: N/A

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY: Defendant San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTIES: No response has been filed

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer

·         Entire Complaint

SUMMARY OF ACTION

From Plaintiff Alfonzo Star’s (Plaintiff) complaint, it appears that he is alleging that Defendant San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center, Inc. (Defendant) made false representations to a judge regarding Plaintiff’s participation in a diversion program. Defendant provides rehabilitation services in connection with a diversion program. Plaintiff alleges that though he was in compliance with the reporting requirements of the program, Defendant reported to the court that he was not in compliance. Plaintiff alleges that as a result, he was remanded to jail. His alleged damages are a result of that incarceration.

On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed his complaint with apparent causes of action for kidnapping, fraud, concealment, negligence, perjury, wrongful imprisonment, person injury, emotional distress and duress, loss of personal property, loss of income, loss of time Div. 50 program, and coercion. However, Plaintiff’s complaint is not organized based on the individual causes of action, so it is impossible to tell which of Plaintiff’s allegations apply to which Defendants and which causes of action.

Defendant filed its demurer on September 18, 2023. No opposition has been filed.

RULING

Demurrer: Sustained with leave to amend

Defendant brings a demurrer to Plaintiff’s entire complaint on the basis that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action against Defendant and on the basis that the complaint is barred by the Civ. Code § 47 litigation privilege. Defendant also demurs on the basis that the complaint is factually uncertain and is procedurally defective.

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (CCP § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law…” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

On the issue of procedural defectiveness, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.112 provides that each cause of action should be headed so as to briefly identify the nature of the claim asserted and if there is more than one, it should identify the defendant or defendants against whom the cause of action is being asserted. “As the leading practical treatise advises, failure to comply with rule 2.112 presumably renders a complaint subject to…a special demurrer for uncertainty. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2016) ¶ 6:113, pp. 6-33 to 6-34.)” (Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 996, 1014.)

In the case of Plaintiff’s complaint, the causes of action are not headed as required by Rule 2.112, nor do they state the number, the nature of the cause of action, or to whom the cause of action is directed. Without this information, it is impossible for a defendant to respond to the causes of action or even know which ones are applicable to them. The demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is sustained for uncertainty due to the procedural defects.

Based on this, Plaintiff’s complaint is also uncertain because a complaint must contain “a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (CCP § 425.10.) Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state which facts apply to which causes of action.

Defendant also demurs to the complaint on this basis that it is barred by the litigation privilege from Civ. Code § 47 due to Plaintiff’s apparent allegations that someone employed by Defendant made false representations to a judge. However, at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s complaint is too uncertain to determine which, if any, of Plaintiff’s causes of action this privilege would apply to.

Because of the procedural defects and uncertainty of Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is sustained with leave to amend.

Plaintiff is given 30 days to file an amended complaint.

Moving party to give notice.