Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV16789, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16789    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Bing Shen sued defendant Joseph Scott Anthony Lido based on a motor vehicle collision.  Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s entire complaint.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the demurrer.

ANALYSIS

“It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.”  (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  In ruling on a demurrer, the court must “liberally construe[]” the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)

A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the pleading is so bad that the responding party cannot reasonably respond, i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Where a demurrer is made upon the ground of uncertainty, the demurrer must distinctly specify exactly how or why the pleading is uncertain, and where such uncertainty appears by reference to page and line numbers. (See Fenton v. Groveland Comm. Services Dist. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 797, 809.)

Here, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, is uncertain, and fails to demand judgment for the relief to which Plaintiff claims to be entitled or state the amount demanded per Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10.

The Court first notes that failure to demand judgment for the relief to which Plaintiff claims to be entitled or state the amount demanded per Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10 is not a recognized basis for demurrer under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10.  Notwithstanding, Defendant’s argument is without merit as Section 425.10, in fact, prohibits stating the amount of judgment demanded in actions for actual or punitive damages for personal injury or wrongful death.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (c).)

Turning to the complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows:  “On October 7, 2020, I was driving a Lyft car on Freeway 101 north bound and my car was rear ended by Joseph Scott Anthony.  Until now I haven’t been compensated for the loss. [¶] I want to be compensated lost [sic.] of wages, car rental fees, medical expenses and emotional suffering.”  (Complaint, p. 2.) 

For pleading purposes, the Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege sufficient ultimate facts to constitute any cause of action.  Ultimate facts are those “constituting the cause of action” or those upon which liability depends. (See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) “[T]he complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form a part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872 [at pleading stage, plaintiff need not specify which of defendant’s employees committed negligent acts or omissions].)  The Court therefore sustains the demurrer for failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend.[1]    Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.