TENTATIVE

Defendant Security Loft Partners LP’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The motion to strike is DENIED as moot.

Defendant to give 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.) 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) 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.”))

“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 Security Loft Partners, LLC (Defendant) demurrers to each cause of action in Plaintiff Audra Karim’s (Plaintiff) Complaint. Defendant argues that the claims for personal injury are time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations. (Demurrer at p. 8.) Defendant argues that the breach of contract claim fails to state the nature of the contract or its legal effect. (Demurrer at pp. 8–9.) Defendant argues that the other claims are insufficiently pleaded and demurrable for uncertainty. (Demurrer at pp. 8–13.)

Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract is insufficiently pleaded. Failure to state whether a contract in a contract action is based on a written, oral, or implied agreement is grounds for demurrer under Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subd. (g). Plaintiff here does not allege the nature of the contract. Moreover, a plaintiff pleading breach of contract must either attach a copy to the complaint, state its terms verbatim, or plead its legal effect. (See Miles v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 394, 401–02.) No contract is attached here, and Plaintiff does not plead the legal effect of the contract or the terms that were breached. (Complaint at p. 4.) The demurrer is therefore SUSTAINED as to the first cause of action for breach of contract.

Plaintiff’s remaining tort claims are time-barred. The statute of limitations for a personal injury claim is two years from the date of the wrongful act. (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1.) Plaintiff alleges that the incident that caused Plaintiff’s injuries — Defendant’s use of an unqualified contractor to remediate lead paint on the exterior of the premises — took place in April 2021. (Complaint at pp. 6–7.) Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 15, 2024, more than two years later.

The demurrer is therefore SUSTAINED. Plaintiff bears the burden to “show the complaint can be amended,” but has not filed any opposition to this demurrer. (Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1176.) Thus no leave to amend is granted.

Defendant also submits a motion to strike Plaintiff’s time-barred personal injury claims and her prayesr for punitive damages and attorney fees. (Motion at pp. 6–11.) Because the demurrer is sustained, this motion is DENIED as moot.