Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV04126, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV04126 Hearing Date: June 12, 2024 Dept: 45
|
HOWARD
MUZIKA, et al., Plaintiff, vs. EQUITY
RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: 23STCV04126
DEPARTMENT
45 [TENTATIVE] RULING Action
Filed: February 24, 2023 Trial
Date: TBD |
Hearing
date: June
12, 2024
Moving Party: Defendant
TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc.
Responding Party: Plaintiffs
Antoine Freeman, Reed Kilpatrick, Edward Gray,
Benjamin
Tenelshof, Tyler Shakelford, Gerald Fisher and Dorene Zhou
(1) Demurrer to Complaint
(2) Motion to Strike
The court
considered the moving papers, opposition papers, and reply.
The
court SUSTAINS with leave to amend Defendant TransUnion Rental
Screening Solutions, Inc.’s demurrer in its entirety on the ground that the
causes of action raised in the complaint against it are uncertain.
The
court DENIES Defendant TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc.’s motion to
strike as moot.
Plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended
pleading within 20 day of this ruling.
Background
On
February 24, 2023, Plaintiffs Howard Muzika, Thomas Dye, Brandy Edmenson, Antoine
Freeman, Reed Kilpatrick, Edward Gray, Benjamin Tenelshof, Tyler Shakelford,
Gerald Fisher and Dorene Zhou (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), initiated this
action against Defendant Equity Residential Management LLC and Does 1 through
10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of the Investigative
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act; (2) invasion of privacy; and (3) declaratory
relief.
On
May 11, 2023, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff Brandy
Edemson and Thomas Dye from this action.
On
July 18, 2023, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Howard Muzika from this action.
On
July 20, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an Amendment to Complaint substituting in
TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. for Doe 1.
On August 17,
2023, Defendant TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. (“TransUnion”) filed
the instant demurrer directed at each cause of action raised in the Plaintiffs’
complaint. On the same day, TransUnion filed a motion to strike directed at Paragraphs
5, 38, 50, 52, and 59 and Paragraphs 1 through 10 of the prayer relief asserted
in the complaint.
On May 30, 2024,
Plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the demurer and motion to strike.
On June 5, 2024,
TransUnion filed its replies.
Request
for Judicial Notice
Plaintiffs request the court to take
judicial notice of the following documents: (1) the complaint in Shoneke
Williams, et. al. v. Equity Residential Management (Case No. 23STCV03676);
and (2) the complaint in Jason Gunnels, et. al. v. Equity Residential
Management (Case No. 23STCV17235).
The court denies the request because
the matters are not relevant to the analysis of the instant matters.
Legal
Standard
Demurrer
A demurrer can
be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under
attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially
noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan
(1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive
a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of
action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the
plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.”
(C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53
Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of
testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth
of all material facts properly pleaded.
(Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962,
966–967.) A demurrer “does not admit
contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67
Cal.2d 695, 713.)
A demurrer tests
the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the
pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.) “If
substantial facts which constitute a cause of action are averred in the
complaint or can be inferred by reasonable intendment from the matters which
are pleaded, although the allegations of these facts are intermingled with
conclusions of law, the complaint is not subject to demurrer for
insufficiency.” (Krug v. Meeham (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 274, 277.)
//
//
//
Motion to Strike
The court may,
upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems
proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any
pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(a).) The court may also strike all or any part
of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a
court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(b).) The grounds
for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or from any matter
of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. §
437.)
Discussion
Meet and Confer
Code of Civil Procedure § 430.41(a) states, in relevant part: “Before
filing a demurrer . . . the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or
by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer
for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would
resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.”
Code of Civil Procedure § 435.5 provides the same meet-and-confer
requirements for a party filing a motion to strike.
Based on the declarations of TransUnion’s former counsel, the court finds
that the meet and confer requirement has been met. (See Singh Decls. ¶¶ 3-5,
Exh. A.)
Demurrer
TransUnion demurs to each cause of action on the
grounds that they do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).)
//
Here, TransUnion argues that the first cause of action for violation of
the ICRAA does not allege specific facts attributable to it. (Demurrer at pp.
5-6.) The court agrees. While Plaintiff contends that sufficient facts have
been alleged to show that the ICRAA applies to a investigative consumer
reporting agency like TransUnion (Opposition re: Demurrer at pg. 3), “statutory
causes of action must be pleaded with particularity.” (Covenant Care, Inc.
v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790.) Therefore, additional facts
must be alleged that apply to TransUnion.
Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the first cause of action
with leave to amend.
Next, TransUnion
demurrers to the second cause of action for invasion of privacy because the
facts alleged do not apply to it. (Demurrer at pp. 6-8.) In opposition,
Plaintiffs argue that this cause of action is sufficiently alleged because the
invasion of privacy is premised on the violation of the IRCAA. (Opposition re:
Demurrer at pp. 3-4.) Considering the demurrer has been sustained as to the
first cause of action, it follows that the second cause of action is properly subject
to demurrer as well.
Accordingly, the
court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the second cause of action with leave to amend.
Lastly,
TransUnion demurrers to the third cause of action for declaratory relief
because an actual, present controversy has not been alleged. The court agrees.
As alleged in the complaint, Plaintiffs’ declaratory relief claim is derivative
of their first cause of action for violation of the ICRAA. (See Compl. ¶ 53.)
Additionally, the complaint alleges that “Defendants demands all leases must be
renewed or re-certified, and because the same forms are always used, which
authorizes the Defendants to obtain investigative consumer reports about the
Plaintiffs.” (Ibid.) This is inapplicable to TransUnion because there
are no allegations to suggest TransUnion is Plaintiffs’ landlord.
Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS demurrer to the third cause of action
with leave to amend.
Motion to Strike
TransUnion also moves
to strike Paragraphs 5, 35, 45, 47, 49, and 55 and
Paragraphs 1 through 10 of the prayer
relief found within the complaint. (See Notice of Motion at pg. 2.) Because the
demurrer has been sustained in its entirety, the motion to strike is denied as
moot.
Plaintiffs
are ordered to file an amended complaint within 20 days of this order.
It
is so ordered.
Dated: June 12, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court