Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 25STCV04777, Date: 2025-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV04777    Hearing Date: May 8, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 8, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Loren Park

Responding Party: None

T/R:      DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

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 February 20, 2025, Plaintiff Soon Bok Choi filed a complaint against Defendant Loren Park, asserting causes of action for (1) defamation; (2) false light; and (3) IIED. Plaintiff alleges Defendant falsely accused Plaintiff of misusing $10,000.00 worth of funds from an alumni association for personal expenditures.

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.)

A. First Cause of Action for Defamation and Libel

Defendant demurs to the first cause of action on the ground that it fails to state sufficient facts and is uncertain. The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage. (See Wong v. Tai Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely accused her of embezzling funds and unlawfully dismissing board members in an online community chat room, damaging her reputation. This is sufficient to allege a claim for defamation.

The demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED.

B. Third Cause of Action for IIED

The elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) intention to cause or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) severe emotional suffering; and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress. (See Moncada v. West Coast Quartz Corp. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 768, 780; Wilson v. Hynek (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 999, 1009.) To satisfy the element of extreme and outrageous conduct, defendant’s conduct “‘must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized society.’” (Moncada, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at 780 (quoting Trerice v. Blue Cross of California (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 878, 883).)

Defendant asserts that the claim for IIED fails because Plaintiff has not alleged extreme and outrageous conduct. As stated, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely accused her of embezzlement. This is sufficient to allege extreme and outrageous conduct.

The demurrer to the third cause of action is OVERRULED.

C. Punitive Damages

Defendant asserts that the “fourth cause of action” for punitive damages fails because it cannot be a standalone cause of action. The complaint does not contain a “cause of action” of punitive damages, it merely requests them in the damages section of the complaint. The demurrer cannot be sustained on this basis.

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.