Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC03780, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC03780    Hearing Date: October 30, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Monday, October 30, 2023

Case Name:                             Josh Grossguth v. Walmart Inc.

Case No.:                                23STLC03780

Motion:                                   Demurrer

Moving Party:                         Defendant Walmart Inc.

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:           Defendant Walmart Inc.’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH TWENTY (20) DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.

BACKGROUND

On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff Josh Grossguth filed a complaint against Defendant Walmart, Inc. alleging intentional tort.

On September 29, 2023, Defendant filed the instant demurrer. To date, no opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Defendant argues that the Complaint is completely devoid of any facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as the Complaint simply sets forth conclusory allegations with no supporting facts.

OPPOSITION

            None.

REPLY

            None.

ANALYSIS

I.          Demurrer

A.                Request for Judicial Notice

The Court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice.

B.                 Meet and Confer

Prior to filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike 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 Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41 and 435.5.)

            On September 7, 2023, Defendant’s counsel spoke with Plaintiff directly, as he is not represented by counsel, explaining that his Complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Li Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) On September 19, 2023, Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to explain Defendant’s intention to file a demurrer. (Id. ¶ 6, Exhib. B.) On the same day, Plaintiff confirmed receipt of the meet and confer letter by email. (Id. ¶ 7, Exhib. C.) Plaintiff failed to amend his complaint as of September 29, 2023. (Id. ¶ 8.) Defendant satisfies the meet and confer requirement.

C.                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.)

“A¿demurrer¿tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of America, N.A.¿(2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not “read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

A general demurrer may be brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted or under section 430.10, subdivision (a), where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. All other grounds listed in Section 430.10, including uncertainty under subdivision (f), are special demurrers. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).)

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 complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.) 

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).) 

D.                Analysis

Defendant argues that the Complaint is completely devoid of any facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as the Complaint simply sets forth conclusory allegations with no supporting facts. For example, Defendant states that on page 3 of the form Complaint, Plaintiff checked the box for Intentional Tort and wrote in damages for wage loss, hospital and medical expenses and loss of earning capacity “according to proof” in the amount of “$16,253.86.” There are no additional facts included with the Complaint in support of these claims. Defendant also states that on page 4 of the Complaint, Plaintiff attached an empty page of Cause of Action – Intentional Tort with no information at all including case number, plaintiff and defendant information, and date, place and description of reasons for liability. Defendant argues that the lack of factual allegations completely deprives it of the ability to meaningfully respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint or plan its defense in this lawsuit. The Court agrees and finds that the complaint is ambiguous and unintelligible. Plaintiff fails to specify which intentional tort he is suing for as well as any facts to support that cause of action.

The demurrer is sustained.

III.       Conclusion

            In light of the foregoing, the Court SUSTAINS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is to be filed and served within twenty (20) days of notice of this order. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.