Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 23STLC07807, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC07807, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC07807 Hearing Date: February 28, 2024 Dept: 25

Hearing Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2024

Case Name: Darrell Earl Williams v. Wells Lawson

Case No.: 23STLC07807

Motion: Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Wells Lawson

Responding Party: N/A - Unopposed

Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

On December 8, 2023, Darrell Earl Williams (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Wells Lawson (Defendant). The Complaint consists of one sentence alleging racism and favoritism (Complaint, pg. 1, lines 15-18), but nothing more. Defendant files the Demurrer now before the Court.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Defendant argues upon Demurrer that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard and Analysis for 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).) Defendant submits the Declaration of John M. Bergerson (Bergerson Decl.) which states that Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff on January 11, 2024, but never heard back. (Bergerson Decl., 2:7-8.) Moreover, there was no phone number nor email address provided on the Complaint. 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 now turns its attention to the Demurrer.

Legal Standard for Demurrer

“[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 for Demurrer

Here, the Complaint contains one sentence alleging “racism and favoritism” but with no further information as to how it manifested, and in what context. Defendant clarifies upon Demurrer that it may be within the context of an application for federally subsidized housing, however, Plaintiff provides no facts supporting their allegations, nor do they articulate a cause of action against Defendant. The Complaint at present is insufficient to place Defendant on notice of the issues and allegations against them, such that Defendant is enabled to prepare a defense. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4^th 531, 549-550. Also see CCP § 430.10(e).) As such, Defendant’s Demurrer must be sustained.

Legal Standard and Analysis for Leave to Amend

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”]. As there is reasonable possibility of successful amendment, Plaintiff is granted 20 days leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.