Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV06185, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV06185    Hearing Date: December 2, 2024    Dept: 61

CHRISTIAN SALINAS, et al. vs BBBB BONDING COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant BBB Bonding Corporation’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Moving party to provide notice.

DISCUSSION

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 BBBB Bonding Corporation (Defendant) demurrers to the Complaint of Plaintiffs Christian Salinas and Maria Cruz (Plaintiffs) on several grounds. Defendant argues that the claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims. (Demurrer at pp. 3–4, 6.) Defendant argues that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert a claim for unfair competition. (Demurrer at pp. 4–5.) And Defendant argues that the seventh and eight causes of action assert claims based on criminal statutes that do not allow for private causes of action. (Demurrer at pp. 5–6.)

Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred. The claims are in the nature of assault, battery, and personal injury claims, which have a two-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1.) Plaintiffs allege that they were injured by agents of Defendant on March 10, 2022. (Complaint at p. 4.) The Complaint was therefore due to be filed on March 10, 2024. Yet Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on March 13, 2024, three days too late. Plaintiffs have filed no opposition, and advance no argument as to the timeliness of their claims.

The demurrer is therefore SUSTAINED in its entirety without leave to amend.