Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV02162, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02162    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          I.        INTRODUCTION

          This is a purported breach of contract case. Plaintiff Tao Lao (Lao), appearing in pro per, filed a 4-page unverified Judicial Council complaint. Plaintiff is a resident at Naomi Gardens retirement home and Defendant Anina Siddiqui (Siddiqui) is the manager at Naomi Gardens.

The complaint contains two causes of action: (1) breach of contract; and (2) common counts.  Lao alleges in the First Cause of Action that Defendant breached a  contract starting in 2015 by “threatening to send plaintiff to convalescent home if plaintiff did not obey instructions.” (Complaint Item BC-2.) As to the Second Cause of Action, Lao alleges that Defendant stole Lao’s identity and withdrew money from her account; and that staff at Naomi Gardens stole items from her room and intimidated her. (Complaint Item CC-4, CC-1(b)(6).)

Lao filed this action on September 19, 2023. Defendant Siddiqui demurred to the Complaint on October 17, 2023. The demurrer is currently unopposed.  Siddiqui alleges in her demurrer that both causes of action of the Complaint fail to state a valid cause of action, and/or are uncertain.

          For the reasons set forth below, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

Law Governing Demurrers 

A general demurrer lies where a complaint fails to state a cause of action. (CCP § 430.10(e).) A demurrer challenges defects appearing on the face of the complaint or in material of which judicial notice may be taken. (CCP § 430.30.) A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)  A demurrer admits, provisionally for purposes of testing the pleading, all material facts properly pleaded. (Tindell v. Murphy (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1239, 1247.) Allegations need not be accepted as true if they are contradicted by judicially noticeable facts. (Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1474.) Unambiguous facts appearing in exhibits attached to the complaint are judicially noticed and given precedence over inconsistent allegations in the complaint. (See, e.g., Dodd v. Citizens Bank of Costa Mesa (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1624, 1626-1627; Richtek USA, Inc. v. uPI Semiconductor Corp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 659-660.)

Code Civ. Proc. Section 430.10(f) provides for a demurrer where a pleading is uncertain. (CCP § 430.10(f).) Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are only sustained where a pleading is so incomprehensible a defendant cannot reasonably respond. (A.J. Fistes v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695; Khoury v. Maly’s of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

III.     DEMURRER

A.  Meet and Confer

Siddiqui offers the meet and confer letter of her attorney in support of meet and confer efforts prior to filing the demurrer. Siddiqui’s counsel, Robert de Spelder, spoke to Plaintiff on October 13, 2023, in person at her residence. (De Spelder Decl. ¶ 5.) He declares that with the help of a Mandarin interpreter, he told Plaintiff, among other things, that “the court could decide to dismiss this suit based on the information alleged in the complaint, but that Plaintiff wished to proceed with the action.” (Id.)

Counsel’s declaration is sufficient for meet and confer purposes.

B. 1^st Cause of Action for Breach of Contract

To state a cause of action for breach of contract, plaintiff must allege “(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.”  (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.) A plaintiff suing for breach of contract must prove that she has performed all of her obligations under the contract or was otherwise excused. (Consolidated World Investments, Inc. v. Lido Preferred, Ltd. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 373, 380 [Reichert v. General Ins. Co. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 830.]) A suit for breach of contract must be filed within four years of the date of the alleged breach. (CCP § 337.)

The complaint states that, on or about 2015-2016, an “observation agreement” was made between Anina Siddiqui and Naomi Gardens, and that Siddiqui was hired as the manager of Naomi Gardens. (Complaint Item BC-1.) Plaintiff does not definitively allege that she is a signatory to this alleged observation agreement, nor that she is an intended beneficiary. It is unclear whether this contract is oral or written, as Plaintiff has checked the box marked “Other” and typed “Observation.” Indeed, nowhere does Plaintiff plead the basic terms of the agreement, or her performance under it. Additionally, Plaintiff has not alleged that “threats” to send her to a nursing home are a breach of this agreement.

Additionally, according to Plaintiff’s allegations, the alleged threats to send her to a convalescent home occurred in 2015. (Complaint Item BC-2.) Plaintiff filed her complaint in September of 2023, which significantly exceeds the four-year statute of limitations for breach of contract. Plaintiff has not alleged that the statute of limitations has been tolled for any reason.

Defendant Siddiqui also urges that this cause of action is uncertain. (Demurrer p. 5: 2-4.)  The standard for sustaining a demurrer due to uncertainty is high. The Court concludes that this claim is also uncertain.  The terms of the purported agreement are very unclear.  

Consequently, the demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained.  

C. 2^nd Cause of Action for Common Counts

“A cause of action for money had and received is stated if it is alleged [that] the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff. . . .  The claim is viable wherever one person has received money which belongs to another, and which in equity and good conscience should be paid over to the latter.”  (Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460.) 

The complaint purportedly alleges that Anina Siddiqui became “indebted” to Plaintiff in the last four years for “identity theft, theft of personal effects and intimidation.” (Complaint Item CC-1(b)(6).) The complaint alleges that Defendant should be ordered to “To give information directly to plaintiff about the documents she signs regarding the management of her life instead of only speaking to plaintiff's daughter. To stop permitting staff to steal items from plaintiff's room or using unknown substances in plaintiff's room without first telling plaintiff what they are. To stop using plaintiff’s identity to take money from her account without notifying plaintiff.” (Complaint Item CC-4, emphasis added.)

Defendant Siddiqui urges that this cause of action is uncertain, as it is unclear when in the last four years that these actions occurred. (Demurrer p. 5: 23-26.) This argument is well-taken. Though the standard for a demurrer due to uncertainty is high, the Court concludes that it is met here. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) It is not clear what Plaintiff is referring to in her cause of action for common counts, whether any indebtedness was ever created, or when any the alleged thefts occurred, by whom and what was allegedly stolen, or indeed how such actions support a cause of action for common counts. 

Accordingly, the demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for common counts is also sustained.

IV. ORDER

          The demurrer is sustained as to both causes of action of the Complaint.  Plaintiff Tao Lao is given 20 days to file an amended complaint.   

          Notice of this ruling is to be given by Defendant Siddiqui.

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT