Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV02340, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02340    Hearing Date: April 11, 2023    Dept: R

Plaintiffs sue for assault and battery and other torts against Quigley and his gardener.  The facts as alleged are that plaintiffs were parked in their car on a public street in front of Quigley’s home.  (The following facts are taken from the complaint; the court is making no actual findings.)  They were waiting for a seven year old to finish her art lesson.  In the car was a four year old child.  The gardener told them to move their car so he could park there.  They refused because they wanted to stay under a tree that was providing shade.  Quigley later drove up and parked across the street.  He spoke to the gardener and came over to the car and told plaintiffs in an allegedly aggressive and demanding manner that they needed to move because they were interfering with the gardener’s work.  They said they were not interfering and would not move.  Plaintiffs allege that Quigley kept yelling at them and they became fearful.  They started to move the car forward and Quigley was motioning them to continue, but they stopped to avoid blocking a driveway.  Quigley allegedly became even more upset and started banging on the car.  The gardener came over and told plaintiffs to “go back to their country” and that they only came “to steal.”  Quigley came over to the passenger door, which plaintiff had started to open, but she closed the door.  Plaintiffs began recording the encounter.  Plaintiffs called the police and Quigley eventually left.

Quigley demurs to the third and seventh causes of action and moves to strike the request for fees and punitive damages.  Plaintiffs oppose.

The demurrers based on uncertainty lack merit. “[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.”  (Lickiss v. Fin. Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)  A demurrer for uncertainty does not address whether the pleading fails to “incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading but is directed at the uncertainty existing in the allegations actually made.”  (Butler v. Sequeira (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 143, 145-146.)  Rather, a demurrer is intended to address whether a pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot understand the allegations actually made. (Id. at p. 146.)  The only arguments asserted by Quigley pertain to the ground of failure to state sufficient facts.  Thus, the demurrers for uncertainty are unsubstantiated and OVERRULED.

The third cause of action alleges a violation of the Bane Act.  That Act is aimed at those who threaten others to prevent them from doing something they have the right to do under the law.  The court does not read the Act as broadly as some—there are a zillion things people have a right to do under the law; surely the Legislature did not mean the Bane Act to apply to them all.  But the Act is applicable here.  There is at least a threat of violence is alleged in the complaint.  Further, reading the gardener’s comments as being attributable to Quigley (which the court must do at the pleading stage), one could view there to be national origin animus here.  That is enough.  The demurrer to this cause of action is OVERRULED.

The demurrer to the false imprisonment claim is also OVERRULED.  Plaintiffs allege enough to make out a case that they were afraid to leave their cars.  While they could have driven away (indeed, that is what Quigley wanted), the fear of leaving the car is enough.  Being confined in one’s car is sufficient for the tort.

The request to strike punitive damages is DENIED.  The conduct alleged is sufficient.  And the motion to strike the request for fees is also DENIED.  The court will not award fees absent a basis to do so, but for now, the prayer does no harm.

Defendant has 20 days to answer.