TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant The People Concern’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Safe At Home ID 5804’s Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with thirty (30) days leave to amend.

Defendant The People Concern’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff Safe At Home ID 5804 may amend her complaint only as authorized by the Court’s order and may not amend the complaint to add a new party or cause of action without having obtained permission to do so. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.)

Defendant The People Concern to give notice. 

REASONING

“[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 (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967), but the Court does not “assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law” (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125).

Further, the court may, upon motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

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”]; Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 [“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”]; Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”].) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Defendant The People Concern (“Defendant”) demurs to Plaintiff Safe At Home ID 5804 (“Plaintiff”)’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in its entirety on the ground that Plaintiff’s SAC is uncertain, unintelligible, and fails to put Defendant on notice of the specific causes of action asserted against it. On June 13, 4024, the Court sustained a prior demurrer to Plaintiff’s original complaint on the same grounds, stating that the complaint did not put Defendant on notice of the nature of the claims against it, as it was said to be a case for personal injury, but it stated elsewhere that Defendant failed to follow the Americans with Disabilities Act, unidentified California law, several Santa Monica Municipal Code provisions, and the Fourth Amendment, while also stating that Defendant had mishandled government funds, and Plaintiff sought disclosure of records revealing all Doe defendants, which did not sufficiently identify any specific causes of action, instead merely describing purported improper conduct by Defendant.

Upon amending the complaint, Plaintiff has merely extended the length of her allegations against Defendant, such that the SAC is now said to include 13 causes of action for negligence and neglect within a 35-page pleading, without clarifying the nature of her claims. First, “neglect” is not a cognizable cause of action. Second, insofar as Plaintiff is attempting to state claims for negligence, Plaintiff must allege the elements of (1) “the existence of a legal duty of care,” (2) “breach of that duty,” and (3) “proximate cause resulting in an injury.” (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) She has failed to do so, instead simply providing statements of conduct occurring at Defendant’s facility without describing the nature of the duty owed to Plaintiff by Defendant, the breach of that duty, and how that breach caused Plaintiff cognizable harm.

The Court will allow Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend her pleading to allege cognizable claims against Defendant. Plaintiff is advised to be mindful of the negligence elements stated herein, as failure to plead facts related to these elements may result in a dismissal of this case. Accordingly, Defendant The People Concern’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Safe At Home ID 5804’s Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with thirty (30) days leave to amend. Given the Court’s ruling on demurrer, Defendant The People Concern’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff Safe At Home ID 5804 may amend her complaint only as authorized by the Court’s order and may not amend the complaint to add a new party or cause of action without having obtained permission to do so. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.)