Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV03145, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03145    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 20, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Anschutz Entertainment Group and LA Arena Company, LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

            DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On January 26, 2022, Plaintiff Lawrence Harris sued “Defendant Staple Center.” The complaint arises from alleged harassment, but the allegations of the complaint do not identify any acts of harassment.  

On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant Anschutz Entertainment Group, which merely states that Plaintiff is “now asking that the 4th amended complaint as a defended name change.” (FAC at p.1:14-17.) The FAC contains no factual allegations.

Also, on September 27, 2023, the Court held a Case Management Conference and stated that “[t]he Court has approved the filing of the Amended Complaint, which is filed and entered this date.” (09/27/23 Minute Order.)

On February 9, 2024, Defendants LA Arena Company, LLC and Anschutz Entertainment Group (“Defendants”) filed and served a demurrer to the FAC. The Court notes that counsel’s declaration in support of the demurrer attaches a different version of the First Amended Complaint than what was filed with the Court. (Prouty Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.) The operative FAC is the FAC that was filed with the Court on September 27, 2023. The purported First Amended Complaint attached to the declaration of Defendants’ counsel in support of the demurrer is unintelligible and does not allege any wrongs purportedly committed by Defendants. If properly before the Court, the Court would find it to be uncertain under CCP § 430.10(f).

The Court’s analysis will focus on the operative FAC filed with the Court on September 27, 2023. Defendants’ demurrer is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

“A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law.”  (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.) “[T]he court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded.”  (Ibid.) A demurrer accepts as true all well pleaded facts and those facts of which the court can take judicial notice but not deductions, contentions, or conclusions of law or fact. (Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078.) Although courts construe pleadings liberally, sufficient facts must be alleged to support the allegations pled to survive a demurrer. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Serv. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) In ruling on a demurrer, “[t]he complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded.” (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.)

A special demurrer for uncertainty under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f) is disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that defendant or plaintiff cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.) “If there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245.) 

A. Uncertainty

            The FAC is uncertain and unintelligible. It does not allege any facts. There are no allegations as to the wrongs allegedly committed by Defendants, when such wrongs occurred, or whether any damages resulted. Defendants cannot determine from the FAC what issues must be admitted or denied.

B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress  

Defendants contend that the FAC does not plead a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court agrees.

“A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is ‘(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.’ A defendant’s conduct is ‘outrageous’ when it is so ‘extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.’ And the defendant’s conduct must be ‘intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.’” (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-1051.) “Severe emotional distress means emotional distress of such substantial quality or enduring quality that no reasonable [person] in civilized society should be expected to endure it.” (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1004, internal quotations omitted.) Behavior may be deemed outrageous “if a defendant (1) abuses a relation or position which gives him power to damage the plaintiff’s interest; (2) knows the plaintiff is susceptible to injuries through mental distress; or (3) acts intentionally or unreasonably with the recognition that the facts are likely to result in illness through mental distress.” (McDaniel v. Gile (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 363, 372.)

As discussed, the FAC does not contain any factual allegations. It does not state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Defendants’ demurrer to the FAC is SUSTAINED. The Court will give Plaintiff another opportunity to amend the complaint to clearly identify the parties, the cause of action, and the facts in support and, if handwritten, to ensure that the pleading is legible.