Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV17472, Date: 2024-11-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV17472    Hearing Date: November 5, 2024    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Sangtae Choi,

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

24STCV17472

 

Vs.

 

 

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

Michael J. Sim,

 

 

 

Defendant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: November 5, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Michael J. Sim

Responding Party: None

 

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED.

 

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS MOOT.

 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN

30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. DEFENDANT 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 July 15, 2024, Plaintiff Sangtae Choi filed a form complaint against Defendant Michael J. Sim, asserting Defendant sent texts threatening to “expose Choi publicly” if he “failed to deliver to Sim certain electric vehicles and the sum of $500,000.00.”

 

 

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 demurs to the complaint on the grounds that it is uncertain and fails to allege damages. The Court agrees. As stated, Plaintiff alleges Defendant threatened “expose Choi publicly” if he “failed to deliver to Sim certain electric vehicles and the sum of $500,000.00.” It is unclear what cause of action Plaintiff is asserting against Defendant. Plaintiff also does not allege facts showing Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant’s conduct.

 

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED. The motion to strike is MOOT.