Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV02262, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02262    Hearing Date: November 28, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Stehura v. Southern California Edison Company, et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV02262

MOTION:                  Demurrer to the Complaint

HEARING DATE:   11/28/2023

Legal Standard

            A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) 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. (CCP §§ 430.30, 430.70.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A “demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732, internal citations omitted.)

            A special demurrer for uncertainty is disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him/her. (CCP § 430.10(f); Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Moreover, even if the pleading is somewhat vague, “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.)

            Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (CCP § 435(b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(b).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (CCP §§ 436(a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)

            “Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given.” (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.) It is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where there is any reasonable possibility that plaintiff can state a good cause of action. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) The burden is on plaintiff to show in what manner plaintiff can amend the complaint, and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. (Id.)

Analysis

Defendants Arcadis CE, Inc., and Arcadis U.S., Inc., demur and seek to strike as to the entire complaint on stranding grounds, failure to state any cognizable causes of action, failure to allege damages, and on uncertainty grounds.

The Court concurs that the Complaint is “uncertain,” “ambiguous,” and “unintelligible” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(f). The 187-page Complaint can easily be described as rambling, and only provides irrelevant diatribes, without stating any cause of action or claim of damages. The allegations generally concern the Woolsey fire, which started on November 8, 2018 (see Complaint at p.3, l.1) in the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Los Angeles County. The fire was extinguished on November 21, 2018. (See, Complaint at p. 130, l.7.) Otherwise, the legal and factual basis of the complaint is entirely unclear. Thus, the demurrer for uncertainty is sustained.

To the extent the Complaint seeks damages for any property, on the face of the complaint, this action was filed beyond the applicable three-year statute of limitations. The three-year statute of limitation would have expired, factoring in the 180-day pandemic related tolling, by May 21, 2022. This action was filed six months later, on November 10, 2022.

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED. Given the legal deficiencies of the complaint, to be granted leave to amend, Plaintiff must first explain the legal basis of this action, their standing to bring such a claim, and how the claim is not time barred.