Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV02856, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02856    Hearing Date: October 19, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Tentative Ruling -

Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant shall answer the Complaint within 10 days. 

Background -

This case arises out of accusations of libel, after one family member accused another of child molestation and published the accusation via text to a third person. Rick Geissler (“Plaintiff”) is the brother-in-law to Laurie Jimenez (“Defendant”). Plaintiff accuses Defendant of falsely stating that Plaintiff committed child molestation. The statement was made via a text message that was sent on June 15, 2021 to David Kueffer. (Complaint, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff alleges that he believes the text was sent to multiple family members and friends for the purpose of damaging Plaintiff’s reputation.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on July 26, 2021. The action was transferred to this Court on February 9, 2023. The Demurrer, opposition, and an objection to the timeliness of the opposition all carry the filing date of February 9, 2023. The Court overrules the objection to the timeliness of the opposition given the passage of time since the filing of the opposition.

Discussion -

Meet and Confer

“Before filing a demurrer…the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (CCP § 430.41(a).) There is no statement within the Demurrer regarding meet and confer efforts, therefore the requirements of CCP § 430.41(a) remain unsatisfied. However, per CCP § 430.41(a)(4), “A determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.” Therefore, the Court will turn to the merits of the Demurrer.    

Legal Standard

“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

Analysis

            Definition of Libel per se

“Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.” (CIV § 45.)

“In determining whether the disputed statement communicates or implies a provably false assertion of fact, we look at the totality of the circumstances, looking first to the language of the statement and whether it was understood in a defamatory sense, and then considering the context in which the statement was made.” (Edward v. Ellis (2021) 72 Cal.App.5^th 780, 790.)

            Sufficiency of Pleadings

Here, Defendant asserts in their Demurrer that (1) the allegation is made without any supporting facts, and (2) Plaintiff has the burden of proving falsity of the statement, citing Nizam-Aldine v. City of Oakland (1996) 47 Cal.App.4^th 364.

As to Defendant’s first contention that the allegation of libel is made without any supporting facts, this is not correct given the plain language of the Complaint. Plaintiff alleges the false statement, states to whom and how it was published, and the damage that the statement has done to his reputation. (Complaint, ¶¶ 5-9.) Additionally, Defendant ignores the policy of liberal construction of pleadings. (See Dieckmannn v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 345, 352.) The Complaint as pled withstands Demurrer.

As to Defendant’s second contention about Nizam-Aldine v. City of Oakland is inapplicable here. That case concerned a final ruling that was appealed, not a Demurrer.  The Demurrer tests the sufficiency of the allegations, not the proof. The question of plaintiff's ability to prove these allegations is not the basis for a demurrer. (See Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213-214.)

For these reasons, the Demurrer is overruled.