Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV43597, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV43597    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On November 30, 2021, Plaintiff Michael Robinson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant MKM Investments Operation LLC (“MKM”).  The complaint attached (1) Judicial Council common counts and breach of contract forms and (2) a handwritten narrative alleging that MKM’s employee pushed open the window of Plaintiff’s home, causing Plaintiff to fall, and returned to Plaintiff’s home several times afterward. 

On May 22, 2023, the Court sustained MKM’s demurrer with leave to amend. 

On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Jeremy Thana (“Thana”) and MKM for general negligence and “other.”  The complaint includes a five-page handwritten narrative and requests $20,000,000.00 in compensatory and punitive damages. 

On March 4, 2024, MKM filed a demurrer, to be heard on April 12, 2024. 

On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a handwritten document titled “Amended Rewritten Pleading [So] You Can Understand My Writing.”  The pleading added "Ocean Property's" as a defendant and is described more fully below. 

No trial date is currently scheduled. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

MKM asks the Court to sustain the demurrer. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 provides in part: 

“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: 

* * *

“(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 

“(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, ‘uncertain’ includes ambiguous and unintelligible. 

“(g)  In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct. . . .” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (f), (g).) 

In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a) [“When any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading”].) 

“For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded (i.e., all ultimate facts alleged, but not conclusions, deductions, or conclusions of facts or law).”  (L. Edmon and C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 7:43, p. 7(l)-25 (Cal. Practice Guide), emphasis omitted.) 

DISCUSSION 

A.   First amended complaint 

The first amended complaint includes the following allegations (liberally construed): 

·       Allegations about Plaintiff’s father, mother, brother, and the person who helped raise Plaintiff.

·       Thana and other people told Plaintiff that they bought Plaintiff’s house and Plaintiff had to get out now.

·       Thana pushed open the window, knocking Plaintiff down, and came back daily, opening windows.

·       Thana stopped returning after Plaintiff confronted Thana outside Plaintiff’s home.

·       Plaintiff’s brother forged Plaintiff’s father’s name.

·       A contractor put some kind of beams on the roof of Plaintiff’s home and ripped off Plaintiff’s father.

·       Plaintiff wants an investigation of Plaintiff’s case and Plaintiff’s father’s death.

·       Plaintiff is a hermaphrodite and does not want to be referred to as a man or Mister.

·       Plaintiff went to court on an eviction case.

·       Russia will give Plaintiff their house back. 

B.   Plaintiff’s March 15, 2024 amended pleading 

Plaintiff’s March 15, 2024 amended pleading, which the Court construes as an amendment to the first amended complaint, adds "Ocean Property's" as a defendant and alleges the following (liberally construed): 

Plaintiff was staying at home in compliance with President Trump’s COVID-19 directive.  A black man came to Plaintiff’s house several times and asked Plaintiff to leave their house.  Plaintiff responded that they had nowhere to go due to Plaintiff’s illness and medical condition, which placed them at risk for COVID-19.  Plaintiff refused the black man’s money.  The black man stopped coming to the house. 

Afterward, Thana and five other people who worked for Ocean Property's came to Plaintiff’s house at 407 East 70th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90003 and told Plaintiff to get out of their house.  Plaintiff responded that they were sick and could not leave due to COVID-19.  Thana and the other people left and came back several times. 

Thana then started coming to the house by himself and banging on Plaintiff’s door.  If Plaintiff did not answer at the door, Thana pushed open the windows and looked inside the house despite Plaintiff’s request that Thana not do that.  On one occasion Thana pushed open a window while Plaintiff was taking a bath, causing Plaintiff to fall and suffer injuries. 

On another occasion, Plaintiff confronted Thanos after he pushed opened a window while Plaintiff’s former girlfriend was changing her baby’s clothes.  After the confrontation, Thanos left and has not returned.  The police told Plaintiff that if Thana came back, Plaintiff should call them. 

C.   The Court takes the demurrer hearing off calendar 

“[I]f a demurrer is filed, [Plaintiff has a right to amend the complaint] . . . up to the time the opposition to the demurrer is due—i.e., nine court days before the hearing on the demurrer.”  (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 7:122.15, p. 7(l)-56, citing Code Civ. Proc., §§ 472, subd. (a), 1005 (Cal. Practice Guide).) 

If the plaintiff amends the complaint before the demurrer hearing, the hearing goes off calendar.  (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 7:122.16, p. 7(l)-56.)  “Defendant must then either answer or demur to the amended complaint within the time permitted (measured from the date of notice of the amendment).”  (Ibid.) 

As noted, the Court has construed Plaintiff’s March 15, 2024 amended pleading as an amendment to the first amended complaint.  Plaintiff filed this amendment on March 15, 2024, more than nine court days before the April 12, 2024 hearing on Defendant’s demurrer.  Therefore, the Court takes the demurrer hearing off calendar. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court takes the demurrer filed by Defendant MKM Investments Operation LLC off calendar. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.