Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV05956, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV05956 Hearing Date: June 2, 2025 Dept: 61
TRACY BUCKLEY AN INDIVIDUAL, et al. vs REGINALD FURBERT AN INDIVIDUAL, et al.
Tentative:
Defendants Reginald Furbert and Jeff Kruger’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint are OVERRULED and DENIED. Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 20 days.
Plaintiffs to provide notice.
Analysis:
I. DEMURRER
A demurrer should be sustained only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 430.30, et seq.) In particular, as is relevant here, a court should sustain a demurrer if a complaint does not allege facts that are legally sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See id. § 430.10, subd. (e).) As the Supreme Court held in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311: “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . . . Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Id. at p. 318; see also Hahn. v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 [“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. [Citation.]”)
“In determining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer … if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639.)
“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 Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Such demurrers “are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848.)
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. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1081.) The demurrer also may be sustained without leave to amend where the nature of the defects and previous unsuccessful attempts to plead render it probable plaintiff cannot state a cause of action. (Krawitz v. Rusch (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 957, 967.)
Defendant Reginald Furbert, individually and as trustee of the Reginald Furbert Living Trust (Defendant) demurrers to the fourth cause of action in the Complaint of Plaintiffs Tracy Buckley, Collington Tillet, and Liberty Tillet (Plaintiffs), on the grounds that Plaintiff pleads no facts supporting the existence of outrageous conduct, or for malice or oppression to support punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294. (Demurrer at pp. 6–8; Motion to Strike at pp. 5–8.)
The elements of an IIED claim are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by defendant; (2) made with intent to cause, or with reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (3) severe emotional suffering; and (4) actual and proximate causation. (Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1259; Bogard v. Employers Casualty Company (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 602, 616.) “Whether a defendant’s conduct can reasonably be found to be outrageous is a question of law that must initially be determined by the court; if reasonable persons may differ, it is for the jury to determine whether the conduct was, in fact, outrageous.” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 534.)
The Complaint’s allegations of outrageous conduct are well-pleaded, and are sufficient to maintain the IIED claim against demurrer. Plaintiffs alleges that the premises suffered from severe defects, including mold, vermin infestation, defective plumbing, and leaks in walls and ceilings. (Complaint ¶ 14.) It is alleged that Plaintiff repeatedly complained of the defects, to no avail. (Complaint ¶ 16.) As a consequence of Defendants’ failure to act, Plaintiff suffered not only damage to their property, but damages to their health, which Defendants knew of. (Complaint ¶¶ 18–20.) Similar allegations have been held sufficient to constitute outrageous conduct in an IIED claim, at least against the challenge of demurrer. (See Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 922 [holding , in a habitability case, that whether similar facts constitute outrageous conduct “presents a factual question” and “it cannot be said as a matter of law that appellant has not stated a cause of action”].) Although Plaintiff presents this authority in opposition to Defendant’s demurrer, Defendant does not mention it in reply, and presents no authority to the contrary.
The demurrer is therefore OVERRULED. The same allegations of outrageous conduct also support allegations of malice and oppression under Civil Code § 3294, subd. (c). Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED.