Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV01372, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01372    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 4/17/24

Case #22CHCV01372

DEMURRER TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Demurrer filed on 10/26/23.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant G4S Solutions (USA) Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Donnie Duncan Sr.

Demurrer is to the entire complaint.

RULING: The demurrer is sustained with 30 days leave to amend. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of an incident that allegedly occurred while Plaintiff Donnie Duncan Sr. (Plaintiff) was working at Defendant G4S Solutions (USA) Inc. (Defendant).  On 12/13/22, Plaintiff, representing himself, filed this action against Defendant claiming that while at work Plaintiff was assaulted and battered causing Plaintiff to sustain physical and emotional injuries.  Plaintiff also claims that he experienced workplace discrimination and gross negligence by Defendant.

Although not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff is seeking damages for breach of contract, common counts, discrimination, assault, battery, defamation, wrongful termination, emotional distress, gross negligence.  (See Complaint, p.2, No.8, No.9, pdf p.4).

After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues Defendant has with the complaint, on 10/26/23, Defendant filed and served the instant demurrer to the entire complaint.  There are issues with the proofs of service attached to the moving papers.  The proof of service attached to the Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer indicates that the document was served by mail and email/e-service.  The physical address in the proof of service lists an incorrect street number (1204 v. 12084) and no email address is set forth.  The proofs of service attached to the other moving documents contain the same error in the physical address; however, they also list the email address Plaintiff has used to communicate with Defendant as evidenced by the meet and confer communications.  (See Smith Decl., Ex.B).  An email address is not listed for Plaintiff in eCourt. 

Despite the foregoing issues with the proofs of service for the moving papers, on 2/20/24, Plaintiff filed a response to the demurrer.  The proof of service attached to the response is also defective in that it does not set forth an address where the document was purportedly delivered via overnight delivery service. 

No reply has been filed. 

ANALYSIS

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, it cannot be determined from the face of the pleading and the decision of the Administrative Law Judge that this action and Plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claim arise out of the same incident. 

However, the complaint fails for other reasons.  Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state any of the causes of action he alludes to in his complaint and the allegations are so uncertain that Defendant cannot respond.  See CCP 430.10(e), (f). 

While the response to the demurrer provides additional facts regarding Plaintiff’s claim(s) which are not included in the complaint, it is still not clear what causes of action Plaintiff is attempting to assert, what facts support such claims and/or whether such claims would be barred by the exclusive remedy of worker’s compensation. 

CONCLUSION

The demurrer is sustained.  Due to the liberal policy of allowing leave to amend and since this is only the original complaint, Plaintiff is given the opportunity to try to cure the defects in his pleading.  A First Amended Complaint is due to be served and filed within 30 days.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s complaint lists his address as: 12084 Van Nuys Blvd., Sylmar, CA 91342 which is the address of record listed for Plaintiff in eCourt.  However, the response to the demurrer filed by Plaintiff lists his address as: 50 Sawgrass Dr., La Place, LA 70068.  If Plaintiff’s address has changed, he must take proper steps to notify Defendant’s counsel and the Court of such change.