Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV01426, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01426    Hearing Date: September 8, 2023    Dept: I

This is a series of demurrers.  The demurrers are SUSTAINED WITH LEVE TO AMEND.  The gist of the complaint is that plaintiffs at one point resided in a five-unit property.  It was owned by defendant Surf.  The complaint alleges that Surf agreed to sell the property with all units vacant to certain other defendants.  Plaintiff Smith allegedly received a phone call before the sale was completed informing her that she had to leave immediately.  After the sale was completed, Smith alleges that she was subjected to numerous incidents of harassment and other illegal conduct, including failing to make necessary repairs, turning off utilities, and failing to cash the rent checks in order to manufacture a false ground for eviction.  Ultimately, Smith alleges that she—like the other former tenants—were forced to abandon the property.

The demurring defendants claim that the complaint is too vague to allege any misconduct by them.  Generally speaking, the complaint’s specification of roles is through generic allegations.  Each defendant is the agent of the others; each defendant is the alter ego of the others.  Other than the legal conclusion, there are no factual allegations differentiating many of the entity defendants (other than Surf as the seller and the identification of the specific buyers) or why they are acting in concert.  The court notes that particular calls and statements, in contrast, are alleged properly.  The identity of the speaker is alleged, the time period is reasonably alleged, and the content is reasonably alleged.  While defendants complain that reliance or intent are not adequately alleged, the court disagrees for pleading purposes.  That is better addressed in an evidentiary motion, if at all.

The court is also aware that in cases of conspiracy, the plaintiff often lacks the knowledge to be able to allege with specificity what each co-conspirator’s role is or was in the wrongful conduct.  And the law does not require great particularity.  But he law requires more than exists here.  Many defendants are identified as to their county of residence and nothing more.  Plaintiff ought to be able to at least state why each defendant is named.  For example, a defendant might be named because it owns the owner of the property.  A defendant might be named because it was the property’s manager.  Or there could be other reasons.  But something more than a name must be given.

The court believes plaintiffs can, and must, do a bit better.  They ought to be able to allege with some degree of concreteness at least what the general role was of the corporate entities and the relationship of the individuals with the entity defendants.  Not a whole lot more is required, and if plaintiffs can allege what it is they are claiming in that regard, it will be enough to get the defendants into the case.  However, if plaintiffs are asserting an alter ego/agency relationship, plaintiffs must allege some facts that would give rise to such an inference; a bald legal conclusion will not suffice.  In each cause of action, plaintiffs ought to assert which defendants (or potential defendants—they can group like defendants together) did what.  They can, however, allege that all of the defendants conspired together such that each is liable for the conspiracy’s actions.  But they cannot just say “defendants” as if every defendant personally did everything.  The court notes that conspiracy is not a cause of action.  It is a doctrine that spreads liability.  Thus it ought not to be pled as a cause of action but the doctrine can be used to assert liability of some co-conspirators even if that co-conspirator did not do the particular act in question.

The court also notes that plaintiffs should consider whether the complaint is over-pled.  While the court is not making any such ruling at this time, the complaint does have some of the hallmarks of a “kitchen sink” pleading.  That is often followed by the “kitchen sink” answer, alleging 35 affirmative defenses.  And what follows is a mess.

Plaintiffs have 30 days to file an amended complaint to conform to the above.  The court emphasizes that it is not requiring great particularity as to each defendants exact role; that is not the office of a complaint.  But more than this is necessary.  If plaintiffs do allege what the court indicated above, the court would not expect to see another demurrer, or at least if there is one, the court would expect it to be more focused and laser-beam in nature.  

The motions to strike are MOOT.