Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCP00475, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCP00475    Hearing Date: September 28, 2023    Dept: C

MOSLEY v. 13435 MULBERRY PROPERTIES, LLC

CASE NO.:  22NWCP00475

HEARING:  09/28/23

#7

Defendants 13435 MULBERRY PROPERTIES, LLC; PAUL SCHROEDER; and DELIA RAMIREZ’s unopposed Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Moving Party to give notice.

No Opposition filed as of September 25, 2023.

This action was filed by Plaintiff (pro per) RORYE MOSLEY JUNIOR (“Plaintiff”) on December 2, 2022. On February 24, 2023, the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed.

In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that this action stems from a landlord-tenant disagreement pertaining to rental payments. “Plaintiff did enter into a rental contract… with Defendants…. Whereafter, plaintiff… tendered, the required amount of U.S. currency, to commence residing on the premises…. The records clearly show that plaintiff, made rental payments, as demanded by contract….. Throughout certain months, agreed upon site manager, plaintiff did make partial rental payment and satisfied the full month, prior to the end of said month. In turn, plaintiff, did make full rental payment and Defendants accused plaintiff, of defaulting on the rent. This is further from the truth.” (FAC ¶1.)

Plaintiff’s FAC asserts the following causes of action:

1.    Libel;

2.    Conspiracy;

3.    Making False Claims;

4.    Intentional Negligence;

5.    Defamation of Character;

6.    Enjoyment of a Dwelling;

7.    Breach of a Verbal Agreement; and

8.    Illegal Removal from Premises

Defendants 13435 MULBERRY PROPERTIES, LLC; PAUL SCHROEDER; and DELIA RAMIREZ (collectively “Defendants”) specially and generally demur to each cause of action.

Uncertainty

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims are fatally uncertain. This argument is well-taken. “A special demurrer for uncertainty is not intended to reach the failure to incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading, but is directed at the uncertainty existing in the allegations actually made.” (Butler v. Sequeira (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 143, 145-146.) However, although, demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored they will be sustained where the pleading is so bad that the 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. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif. Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

The Court finds the FAC to be uncertain. Although Plaintiff’s caption indicates that 8 separate causes of action are being asserted, there are no separately labeled causes of action within the body of the FAC. CRC Rule 2.112 states: “Each separately stated cause of action… must specifically state: (1) Its number (e.g., ‘first cause of action’); (2) Its nature (e.g., for fraud’); (3) The party asserting it if more than one party is represented on the pleading (e.g. ‘by Plaintiff Jones’); and (4) The party or parties to whom it is directed (e.g., ‘against defendant Smith’).” (Id.) As pled, the parties are unable to determine which causes of action are directed against each defendant, and how each Defendant is liable for each cause of action.

Moreover, Plaintiff alleges a claim for breach of verbal contract. However, the terms or legal effect of the purported contract between the parties, and facts pertaining to Defendants’ breach are not sufficiently pled. It is unclear why Defendants/which Defendants are in breach of the purported rental agreement between the parties.

Accordingly, the unopposed Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.