Judge: Lindsey E. Martinez, Case: 2019-01116262, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Demurrer to Amended Complaint

Defendant City of Huntington Beach demurs to Plaintiff Dariusz Kadziolka’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). For the following reasons, the demurrer is sustained in part and overruled in part.

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of factual allegations in a complaint.” A demurrer is limited to the operative complaint’s four corners, attached exhibits, and judicially noticeable matters. (Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 390, 400.) “Because a demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleading, the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true. (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1190 [citation omitted].)  “[A] demurrer may be sustained where judicially noticeable facts render the pleading defective . . . and allegations in the pleading may be disregarded if they are contrary to facts judicially noticed.” (Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 751 [citations omitted].)

Claims Presentation Requirement

The Government Claims Act (the “Act”) requires a plaintiff to timely file a claim for money or damages with the public entity as a condition precedent to filing a lawsuit against the public entity. (Gov. Code, § 911.2; State of California v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1237.) The failure to do so bars the plaintiff from suing that entity. (Gov. Code, § 945.4; State of California v. Superior Court, at pp. 1237, 1239.) A plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the Act’s claims presentation requirement, otherwise the complaint is subject to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action. (State of California v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th at 1239.)

The FAC does not allege that Plaintiff timely complied with the claims statute. Defendant’s demurrer on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action is sustained.

Res Judicata

Defendant City of Huntington Beach contends the causes of action set forth in the instant FAC are barred by res judicata/claim preclusion because they were already raised or should have been raised in the Prior Complaint filed in Kadziolka v. Gonzalez 1212, et al. 30-2019-01115830.

“Claim preclusion, the ‘ “ ‘primary aspect’ ” ’ of res judicata, acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous lawsuit involving the same parties.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824.) Claim preclusion “ ‘prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.’ [Citation.] Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves: (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit. [Citations.] If claim preclusion is established, it operates to bar relitigation of the claim altogether.” (Id.)

The doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable because Defendant was not a party to the prior action, Kadziolka v. Gonzalez 1212, et al., Case No. 30-2019-01115830. Res judicata “necessarily requires the litigation of an issue (or at least a fair opportunity to litigation) between parties with adversarial interests. The doctrine cannot be applied to immunize the outcome of a proceeding where the parties were not adversaries. [Citations]” (Dawson v. Toledano (Fourth Dist. Div. 3, 2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 387, 399.) Plaintiff and Defendant were not adversaries in the prior action.

Moreover, the prior action was dismissed without prejudice and did not result in a final judgment.

The demurrer is overruled to the extent it is based on the res judicata doctrine.

Uncertainty

The court will only sustain a demurrer for uncertainty if it is so poorly drafted that defendants cannot reasonably respond.  (Khoury v. Maly’s of California Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)  A demurrer for uncertainty must identify by line and page number, the language that creates the uncertainty. (Fenton v. Groveland Community Services Dist. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 797, 809.)

Here, the FAC is not “so incomprehensible that [moving defendants] cannot reasonably respond.”  (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2010) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)  Any “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.”  (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)  The special demurrer for uncertainty is overruled.

Should Plaintiff desire to file an amended complaint that addresses the issues in this ruling, Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve it within 15 days of service of notice of ruling.

Moving party to give notice.