Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

JULIANA PAYNE,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

NAIMA RICHARDSON, et al., 

Defendants. Case No.: 22STCV10827

DEFENDANT TIFFANY ELDER’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Defendant Tiffany Elder’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED with leave to amend.

If Plaintiff wishes to amend causes of action two through seven of the complaint with respect to Defendant Elder, Plaintiff must file and serve the second amended complaint within 30 days after the date of this order.

The Court sets an OSC Re: Dismissal of Defendant Edler with Prejudice for Failure to Timely File a Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to CCP Section 581(f)(2) for April 11, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

The Court will also provide notice to Plaintiff only.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action alleging defamation and harassment. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. 

Plaintiff Juliana Payne (“Plaintiff”) is a children’s book author and filmmaker. (FAC ¶ 4.) Through her work, Plaintiff became acquainted with Defendant Naima Richardson, A.K.A. Kitty Bradshaw (“Richardson”). (FAC ¶ 5.) Plaintiff hosted Richardson on Plaintiff’s Twitch stream. (FAC ¶ 9.) Shortly thereafter, Richardson’s behavior toward Plaintiff changed. (FAC ¶ 14.) 

On April 1, 2021, Richardson hosted a Twitch Stream on which Richardson made numerous malicious statements of purported facts about Plaintiff that Richardson knew to be false. (FAC ¶ 17.) Richardson began to regularly post on social media that Plaintiff was stalking Richardson. (FAC ¶ 20.) Richardson has continued to harass and defame Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff’s attempts to rebut the information.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting six causes of action:

1. Harassment;

2. Invasion of Privacy – False Light;

3. Defamation;

4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

5. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; and

6. Injunctive Relief.  

On April 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint, adding a cause of action for negligence. 

On October 19, 2023, Defendant Tiffany Elder filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

The motion is unopposed.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Tiffany Elder moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that another Defendant, Naima Richardson, has already been dismissed from this action.

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings when the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 438(b)(1) and (c)(1)(B)(ii).)

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999 (Citations Omitted).) The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322 (citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216).)

“No motion may be made pursuant to this section if a pretrial conference order has been entered pursuant to Section 575, or within 30 days of the date the action is initially set for trial, whichever is later, unless the court otherwise permits.” 

Judicial Notice

Elder requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following:

1. A screenshot of the case access website displaying case information for this matter;

2. Proof of service for a notice of address that was served and filed in October 2022;

3. Defendant Richardson’s notice of demurrer and demurrer filed August 26, 2022;

4. An order denying Plaintiff’s April 2022 petition for writ of mandate in small claims case 21STSC03816 with accompanying transcripts;

5. The Court’s November 14, 2022 minute order sustaining Richardson’s demurrer in this matter;

6. The May 2022 Doe Amendment naming Richardson as a Defendant in this action; 

7. The Court’s August 15, 2023 ruling on Defendant Olmedo’s motion to dismiss; and

8. Screenshots of text messages between Elder and Plaintiff.

Although a court may take judicial notice of court records and files, judicial notice is limited to matters that are indisputably true. (Evid. Code, section 452(d); Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482.) The truth of the matters asserted in these records is not subject to judicial notice. (Arce at p.483.) A court may take judicial notice of a document’s legal effect. (Julian Volunteer Fire Co. Assn. v. Julian-Cuyamaca Fire Protection Dist. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 583, 600.)

Here, requests 1-7 are granted because the documents are court records which may be subject to judicial notice. However, the Court will only take judicial notice of the records’ existence and legal effect. The truth of the matters asserted in the records are not subject to judicial notice. 

The request for judicial notice as to the text messages between Elder and Plaintiff is denied because these are not records which may be judicially noticed under Evid. Code, section 452.

Analysis

Elder moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Richardson, the Defendant who caused Plaintiff’s alleged harm, has already been dismissed from this action. Elder also argues the motion should be granted because another defendant, Olmedo, has also been dismissed from the action. 

Elder appears to argue that the motion must be granted on the same grounds as the demurrers filed by Richardson and Olmedo. Elder represents that the Court previously ruled the FAC was frivolous, uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible. However, the Court sustained these demurrers on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Although Elder requested judicial notice of the minute orders sustaining Richardson’s demurrer and granting Olmedo’s motion to dismiss, Elder fails to make any arguments pertaining to res judicata or collateral estoppel. Absent any authority or explanation supporting Elder’s assertion that the motion should be granted for the same reasons as Richardson and Olmedo, the motion is denied as to this ground.

Elder appears to argue that Plaintiff’s claims against her should be dismissed because Richardson, the sole perpetrator of Plaintiff’s harm, was dismissed. However, Elder does not explain why this case cannot go on without Richardson as a party or why Plaintiff’s claims against Elder fail as a result of Richardson’s dismissal. 

Elder also argues that the FAC fails to state a cause of action against her because the FAC does not state how any other Defendant contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged harm.

“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.)  

Here, the FAC states that Richardson and Plaintiff were both streamers on the online streaming service Twitch who hosted a stream together. (FAC ¶¶8-16.) After Richardson blocked Plaintiff, Richardson held streams making false, defamatory statements about Plaintiff and continued to spread these statements in mass emails and social media posts. (FAC ¶¶17-22.) As a result of Richardson’s conduct, Plaintiff was banned from Twitch. (FAC ¶23.)

The FAC primarily describes Richardson’s actions. Plaintiff named eighteen Doe Defendants, including Elder. Only Richardson was named in the first cause of action. Although the FAC alleges that all Defendants made defamatory statements about Plaintiff or engaged in harassing conduct, the FAC does not include any particular allegations about any specific Doe Defendant. With the few facts alleged, Elder does not have sufficient information to know which issues she is to meet. Therefore, the FAC is fatally uncertain as to Defendant Elder.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.

DATED:  February 26, 2024

______________________________

Hon. Jill Feeney

Judge of the Superior Court