Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 24STCV22365, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 24STCV22365, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV22365 Hearing Date: January 22, 2025 Dept: 61

COURTNEY MICHELLE WARD vs MATTEL, INC

Tentative

Defendant Mattel, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Moving party 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 Mattel, Inc. (Defendant) demurrers to the Complaint of Courtney Michelle Ward (Plaintiff) on the grounds that it is uncertain, fails to plead the elements of unfair competition or misappropriation of likeness, is time-barred, and barred by the doctrine of res judicata from a prior adverse adjudication. (Demurrer at pp. 10–15.) The Complaint’s allegations consist in their entirety of the following:

Since the 1980s Mattel, Inc. has been creating and selling Courtney dolls that use my name and image. I have never been paid for this.

(Complaint at p. 4.)

Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. The time to bring an unfair competition claim is four years (Bus. & Prof. § 17208), while the time to bring a claim for misappropriation of likeness is two years. (Christoff v. Nestle USA, Inc. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 468, 476.) Plaintiff alleges that the misappropriation at issue took place in the 1980s, long before the present complaint was filed.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s claim is also barred by claim preclusion. “Claim preclusion, often referred to as res judicata, provides that “a valid, final judgment on the merits precludes parties or their privies from relitigating the same cause of action’ in a subsequent suit.” (City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire Retirement System (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 210, 227.) Plaintiff filed a prior action against Defendant earlier this year (Ward v. Mattel, Inc., LASC Case No. 24STCV10816), alleging substantially the same claim, which was dismissed for uncertainty and failure to state a claim. (RJN Exhs. A, B.) Though Plaintiff was granted leave to amend, no amended complaint was filed. (RJN Exhs. B, E.) Plaintiff’s prior complaint being dismissed for failure to state a claim, the present court is bound by the final judgment of the prior action.

The demurrer is therefore SUSTAINED without leave to amend.