Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01894, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01894    Hearing Date: January 24, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      January 24, 2024                                             TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         KYLE PATTERSON v. MARANATHA HIGH SCHOOL. 

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV01894

DEMURRER WITH MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Marantha High School

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Kyle Patterson

SERVICE:                              Filed December 27, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed January 17, 2024

REPLY:                                   No reply filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendant demurrers to and moves to strike Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiff Kyle Patterson’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Maranatha High School improperly denied his children access to their school. Plaintiff filed this complaint on August 21, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED and its motion to strike is DENIED as moot.

Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 20 days of the date of this order.

LEGAL STANDARD

Demurrer

A general demurrer may be taken to a complaint where “[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cuse of action.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc. section 430.30(a).)  A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  (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 v. Mirda, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Additionally, a special demurrer to a complaint may be brought on the ground the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. Code Civ. Proc section 430.10(f); Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180, 1191.) A demurrer based on uncertainty is disfavored and will be strictly construed even when the pleading is uncertain in some respects. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrers based on uncertainty are “granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

Motion to Strike

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike a pleading or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).)  The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).)  The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)  An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., 431.10, subd. (b).)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)   

DISCUSSION

            Defendant purportedly objects to and moves to strike Plaintiff’ “first amended complaint” Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on August 21, 2023. On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff attempted to file an amended complaint that was rejected. Additionally, it appears that the “amended complaint” may not have been served on Defendant as no proof of service was attached or filed. After the rejection of the amended complaint, Plaintiff applied for appointment as Guardian Ad Litem and retained counsel.

            Here, procedural irregularities has created confusion among the parties as to what the operative pleading at issue is. In opposition, Plaintiff requests leave to amend the pleadings to correct any issues.

            Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), provides, in part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED and its motion to strike is DENIED as moot.

Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 20 days of the date of this order.

            Moving Party to provide notice.

Dated:   January 24, 2024                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court