Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV20650, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20650    Hearing Date: December 13, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 13, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Richard F. Banning

Responding Party: None

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

PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS THEREAFTER.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

BACKGROUND

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff Eduardo Aguirre filed a complaint against Defendants Richard F. Banning and The City of Brea Police Department. Plaintiff alleges Banning poisoned Plaintiff and spied on Plaintiff and his girlfriend.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

Defendant Banning demurs to the complaint on the ground that it is uncertain and fails to state sufficient facts. The Court agrees the complaint is uncertain. The allegations are confusing, and Plaintiff does not identify any cause of action against Banning.

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED.