Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV04258, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04258    Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendant Property Management Associates’ Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

I.                DEMURRER

A demurrer should be sustained only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 430.30, et seq.) In particular, as is relevant here, a court should sustain a demurrer if a complaint does not allege facts that are legally sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See id. § 430.10, subd. (e).) As the Supreme Court held in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) Cal.3d 311: “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . . . Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Id. at p. 318; see also Hahn. v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 [“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. [Citation.]”)

“In determining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer … if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated.”  (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639.)

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Such demurrers “are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848.)

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. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1081.) The demurrer also may be sustained without leave to amend where the nature of the defects and previous unsuccessful attempts to plead render it probable plaintiff cannot state a cause of action. (Krawitz v. Rusch (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 957, 967.)

Defendant Property Management Associates (Defendant) demurrers to the sixth cause of action for false imprisonment on the grounds that the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) fails to allege that Defendant intended to confine Decedent William Weil (Decedent), which is an element of the tort of false imprisonment. (Demurrer at pp. 2–3.) This court previously sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint’s (SAC) false imprisonment claim on the grounds that it failed to allege Defendant’s “intent to confine, or to create a similar intrusion” against Plaintiff, which is an element of the false imprisonment tort. (Fermino v. Fedco, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 701, 716.)

The TAC has rectified the defects in the previous pleading. The TAC now alleges that Defendant knew of Decedent’s disability and that he would be confined to his apartment as long as they refused to fix the elevator, and further that they “intended to confine Dr. Weil to his apartment so that they could continue to collect rent from him while the elevator remained out of service.” (TAC ¶¶ 64–65.) Plaintiff has alleged the requisite intent.

The demurrer is therefore OVERRULED.