Judge Jill Feeney, Case 22STCV06260 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “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.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 430.41.)

Allied Universal demurs to the complaint on grounds of uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts to constitute causes of action against Defendant. Defendant argues the complaint fails to define causes of action. Additionally, the Complaint is made on form PLD-C-001 and fails to include any attachments for causes of action.

CCP section 430.10(f) provides that a pleading is uncertain if it is ambiguous and unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(f).) “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 California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) “A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her.” (Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group) § 7:85 (emphasis in original).) “The objection of uncertainty does not go to the failure to allege sufficient facts.” (Brea v. McGlashan (1934) 3 Cal.App.2d 454, 459.) “It goes to the doubt as to what the pleader means by the facts alleged.” (Id.) “Such a demurrer should not be sustained where the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues which he is to meet.” (People v. Lim (1941) 18 Cal.2d 872, 882.)

California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 2.112 provides that each separately stated cause of action must specifically state (1) its number (e.g., “first cause of action”); (2) its nature (e.g., “for fraud”); (3) the party asserting it if more than one party is represented on the pleading (e.g., “by plaintiff Jones”); and (4) the party or parties to whom it is directed (e.g., “against defendant Smith”). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.112.)

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to identify any causes of action against Defendant and fails to comply with CRC Rule 2.112. The Complaint alleges Allied Universal is a Defendant in this action and that damages are in the amount of $200,000. There are no facts or causes of action alleged in the Complaint. The Complaint is so uncertain that Allied Universal and the Court are not on notice as to what causes of action Plaintiff asserts and on what factual grounds.