Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV13640, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV13640, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13640 Hearing Date: October 3, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

Hearing Date: 10/3/24

CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV13640 CHRISTIAN HAYWOOD vs CEDAR SINAI

Moving Party: Defendant Cedars Sinai

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE ARE GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Background

On June 14, 2023, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a two-page Complaint. The first page contains the case caption and lists the defendant as “Cedar Sinai.” The second page is handwritten and almost illegible, but it appears to allege the following:

· Plaintiff had a stroke three years ago and was brain dead for seven days.

· “On May 21,” Plaintiff went to “Cedar Sinai” with “head swelling” and “a hard time breathing.”

· Plaintiff was never called to the back and was then discharged.

Defendant now demurs and moves to strike the pleading on the grounds of uncertainty and the fact that the pleading is not signed. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

Uncertainty

CCP section 430.10(f) provides that a pleading is uncertain if it is ambiguous and unintelligible. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(f).) “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) “A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her.” (Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group) § 7:85 (emphasis in original).) “The objection of uncertainty does not go to the failure to allege sufficient facts.” (Brea v. McGlashan (1934) 3 Cal.App.2d 454, 459.) “It goes to the doubt as to what the pleader means by the facts alleged.” (Id.) “Such a demurrer should not be sustained where the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues which he is to meet.” (People v. Lim (1941) 18 Cal.2d 872, 882.)

Discussion

Here, the complaint contains no jurisdictional allegations. Plaintiff does not state whether the events occurred in California or elsewhere, leaving the Court uncertain if it has jurisdiction to hear this case.

A significant portion of the handwritten complaint is nearly illegible, which further exacerbates the uncertainty of the pleading. Plaintiff alleges that he was "not called to the back and then discharged." At another point, Plaintiff alleges that “they stole my belt buckle” and “[p]rice is well over the limit.” Ultimately, it is unclear what cause of action Plaintiff is alleging: medical malpractice, negligence, or another cause of action. This lack of clarity makes it impossible for Defendant to prepare a defense or even understand what claims are being made against it.

Additionally, the complaint does not allege any specific damages (except the stolen belt buckle) or explain how Defendant's conduct caused harm. Under California law, a complaint must include not only the facts supporting the cause of action but also a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader claims to be entitled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10(a).) The foregoing absences adds to the uncertainty of the pleading.

Furthermore, under California law, every pleading, including a complaint, must be signed by the party (if they are representing themselves) or by the attorney representing the party. (California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7(a).) The present complaint does not include Plaintiff's signature and therefore should be stricken.

The Complaint is uncertain and lacks Plaintiff’s signature, but since this is Plaintiff’s first complaint, Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend. Thus, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend within 20 days.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.