Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC03309, Date: 2023-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC03309    Hearing Date: December 19, 2023    Dept: 25

Tentative Ruling

Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong

Department 25

Confidential – Court-Privileged Document

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, December 19, 2023

Case Name:                             GRACE PARK v. KYEONG SHIN, MEGAN SHIN, AND JUNG SHIN.

Case No.:                                23STLC03309

Motion:                                   Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party:                         Defendants Kyeong Kwon Shin and Minyeong Shin

Responding Party:                   Plaintiff Grace Park

Notice:                                    OK

Recommended Ruling:           Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH twenty (20) Days LEAVE TO AMEND as to the slander cause of action, and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the obstruction of justice cause of action.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       OK 

OPPOSITION:          Filed as of December 13, 2023                       [   ] Late          [   ] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of December 13, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On May 19, 2023, self-represented Plaintiff Grace Park (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Kyeong Shin (“Kyeong”), Megan Shin (“Minyeong”) (collectively “Defendants”), and Jung Shin (“Jung”) alleging slander and obstruction of justice due to Defendants’ misleading report to the police. Plaintiff alleges that she and Defendant Jung Shin, her grandmother, had a disagreement sometime on May 31, 2022, wherein Jung Shin became violent. Plaintiff eventually locked herself in her room in their shared residence. Plaintiff alleges that at some point after the altercation, the police were called to their residence and Plaintiff was arrested, held in jail for 13 hours, and charged with assault of an elderly person 85 or over. Plaintiff claims the case was dropped because it lacked circumstantial evidence. Plaintiff claims that because of these events, her reputation has suffered. Therefore, she is seeking monetary damages and reimbursement in bail fees and an unspecified amount in other fees incurred by Plaintiff.

B. Procedural

On May 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a cause of action against the Defendants for false imprisonment and defamation.

Jung Shin has not been served with the summons and complaint. (6/26/23 Jung Shin POS.)

Kyeong Shin and Megan Shin were served on June 21, 2023, by personal service. (6/26/23 Kyeong Shin POS; 6/26/23 Megan Shin POS.)

On June 30, 2023, Defendants and Jung filed their Answer and Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

On August 14, 2023, the Court sustained Defendants demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to amend.

On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint bringing a cause of action against the Defendants for Slander and Obstruction of Justice.

On October 31, 2023, Defendants filed the instant Demurrer with Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed opposition to the demurrer on November 15, 2023.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Defendants pray for the Court to grant their motion to demurrer and dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint without leave to amend. Defendant alleges: 1) that Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege specific facts that establish a valid claim against Defendant for slander and obstruction of justice; 2) that based on Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant cannot determine the amount of damages Plaintiff seeks; and 3) that the allegations made in Plaintiff’s complaint are conclusory.

OPPOSITION

            In opposition Plaintiffs prays the court overrules the demur because Plaintiff states sufficient facts to state a cause of action against the Defendant.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

 “The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.) As a general matter, 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 pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Id.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 128.) However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).

II.        Discussion

            A. Meet and Confer Requirement

The demurring party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading to resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (CCP § 430.41(a).)

Here the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a). Defendants’ counsel, Frank Stanley, spoke to Plaintiff by phone on October 30, 2023, before filing this demurer. (Stanley Decl. ¶ 1.) Stanley informed Plaintiff of Defendants’ intent to file a demurrer and met and conferred regarding Plaintiff’s discovery request as well as the possibility for a settlement. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff stated she was unwilling to amend her complaint any further and would challenge any demurrer filed in the case. (Id. at ¶ 3.) The parties could not reach an agreement, necessitating the filing of this demurer. (Id.) Thus the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement is satisfied.

B. Cause of Action

Plaintiff brings a cause of action for slander and obstruction of Justice.

To have a cause of action for slander, Plaintiff must show the following, 1) a false and unprivileged publication; 2) orally uttered to third persons; and 3) naturally tending directly to injure a person, in respect to office, profession, trade or business (slander per se), or special damages.

(Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4th 90, 106, disapproved on other grounds by Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 376, 392; Lundquist v. Reusser (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1193, 1203.) Additionally, Civ Code § 47(b) provides that a privileged publication is one made: “In any (1) legislative proceeding, (2) judicial proceeding, (3) in any other official proceeding authorized by law....” (Civ. Code, § 47(b).) Courts have held that we believe that “the privilege applies only if the erroneous report to the police is made in good faith.” (Devis v. Bank of America (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1008.)

Defendant demurs on the basis that the Complaint is unclear as to the date, time, location of the alleged slander made by Defendants. (Demurrer, p. 4.) Defendant also contends that the complaint fails to specify what monetary damages Plaintiff allegedly suffered, whether they were related to her bail bond, and whether Plaintiff actually incurred any out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the incident. (Id. at p. 7-8.)

First, in its prior order, the Court noted that special demurrers, such as those based on uncertainty, are not permitted in limited jurisdiction courts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).)

As for the Defendant’s argument that the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts, the Court agrees. Here Plaintiff alleges in her first amended complaint that, “The [Defendant’s] intended to defame me by slander and also proceeded in the action of exemplary damages of malice, fraud and oppression by obstructing justice.” (Pl. First Am. Compl.) This would be conclusory as it states conclusions of law and not facts. Plaintiff’s amended complaint further alleges that the Defendants made false and damaging accusations against the plaintiff to the police which resulted in Plaintiff’s arrest.” This also does not provide the Court with satisfactory facts to have a cause of action for slander because while the Plaintiff alleges malice on the part of the defendant, this does not overcome the publications privilege for police reports as there is no showing that Defendants made the erroneous report in bad faith. Thus, Plaintiff does not state sufficient facts to have a cause of action for slander.

Turning to the cause of action for obstruction of justice. Generally, courts have held that a party cannot maintain a civil cause of action for obstruction of justice by false testimony. (Agnew v. Parks (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 756.) The common law crime of the obstruction of justice (Lorenson v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 49.) is not recognized under our statutes although various separate offenses are designated ‘perjury,’ ‘subornation of perjury,’ and ‘concealment of evidence’ (36 Cal.Jur.2d, Obstructing Justice, p. 597, Section 1). (Id. at 765.) California Penal Code defines perjury and subornation of perjury as felonies (Sections 118, 127). The Agnew court further held that,

[N]o civil right can be predicated upon a mere violation of a criminal statute (Babu v. Petersen, 4 Cal.2d 276.), and on the theory that there must be an end to litigation (41 Am.Jur., Perjury, Section 81, p. 45), aside from defamation and malicious prosecution, no injury from false testimony upon which a civil action for damages can be maintained is recognized (Taylor v. Bidwell, 65 Cal. 489; Gerini v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 27 Cal.App.2d 52; Cal.Jur.2d, Perjury, Section 53, p. 439); and since one who by perjury has injured another is not answerable civilly, our courts, as well as those in other jurisdictions, have held that neither is the one procuring the same.

(Agnew (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 756, 765–766.) Here Plaintiff brings a cause of action for obstruction of justice based on the allegation that Plaintiff overhead Defendant Kyeong telling Defendant Megan to say that “grandma is so injured that she cannot get up.” (Pl. First Am. Compl. p. 1:28-2:1) Further that officers decided to arrest Plaintiff based on the statement by Jung and the informants coupled with the complaint of pain to the victim’s head. (Id. p.2:7-10.) This would go towards supporting a claim of obstruction by false testimony, however, court precedent holds that Plaintiff cannot maintain a civil cause of action under such basis. Thus, Plaintiff cannot bring a cause of action for obstruction of justice.

Thus, because Plaintiff has not stated sufficient facts to have a cause of action for both slander and obstruction of justice, the Court must sustain the Demurrer.

C. Motion to Strike

            Under the Code of Civil Procedure § 92(d), motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts may only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 92, subd. (d).)

            Here, Defendant claims that the damages sought by Plaintiff are not supported by the allegations of the complaint. According to the complaint, Plaintiff request monetary damages, believing that “the Judge will decide that appropriate amount to compensate the plaintiff for fees incurred as a result of [Defendant’s] actions.” (Pl. Opp. p. 2.) Plaintiff additionally seeks bail fees and court fees incurred by Plaintiff. (Id.) Here the Court finds that the complaint does not provide sufficient facts to state both causes of action. Thus, the Court grants the motion to strike.

            Accordingly, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH TWENTY (20) DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND as to Plaintiff’s cause of action for slander.  The Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to Plaintiff’s obstruction of justice cause of action.

III.       Conclusion

            Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED. Defendant’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED. Plaintiff is GRANTED twenty (20) days leave to amend as to Plaintiff’s cause of action for slander. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to Plaintiff’s cause of action for obstruction of justice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.