Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV02523, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02523    Hearing Date: October 30, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This case arises from a landlord/tenant dispute.  On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Willie Frank Bell (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against his new landlords, Defendants Joseph P. Kendall; Midvale Telmadge LLC; and Rocio Angelina Flamenco (“Defendants”) alleging two causes of action for (1) breach of quiet enjoyment and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

On September 5, 2024, Defendant Rocio Angelina Flamenco (“Flamenco”) filed a hand-written cross-complaint in pro per.  Plaintiff now demurs to Flamenco’s cross-complaint on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and for uncertainty, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f), respectively.  The demurrer is unopposed. 

ANALYSIS

1.     DEMURRER

“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 testing the sufficiency of a cause of action, a court accepts “[a]s true all material facts properly pled and matters which may be judicially noticed but disregard contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  [A court also gives] the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.”  (290 Division (EAT), LLC v. City & County of San Francisco (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 439, 450 [cleaned up]; Hacker v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 270, 280 [“in considering the merits of a demurrer, however, “the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].)

Further, in ruling on a demurrer, a court must “liberally construe” the allegations of the complaint “with a view to substantial justice between the parties.”  (See 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.)  

In summary, “[d]etermining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the rule is that if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated, or may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to the cause of action shown, or although the plaintiff may demand relief to which he is not entitled under the facts alleged.”  (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639.)

A.    UNCERTAINTY

“[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored.”  (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)  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.) 

Flamenco alleges verbatim in the cross-complaint as follows:

“I Rocio Angelina Flamenco notify the courts the current abuse suffering from Willie Frank Bell.  Willie Bell has damage my cars, has emotional & physical attack me has violated a Restraining Order # 24STRO03468 has falsy accuse me in a civil case to continue destroying my life & affecting my workplace.  Willie Frank Bell has not only put my life in danger but has also affected my living & workplace relapship & financial income by getting me & my witnesss fired from my workplace & in danger my living situation.  Mr. Willie Frank Bell has violated TRO, Damage Personal Property, cause financial harmshee intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with intention of causing of the emotional distress I proof the courts a approve TRO.  Proof of violations of TRO.  False testify of draft settlements & proof of property damage, also employmen t& living current proof of harmship requested by Willie Frank Bell.

Defendant’s conduct of repeated false accusations & violations on current Restraining Order #24STRO03468 which a new hearing for violations is being held on 9/26/2024 at 8:30 AM in LA Hills Street Courthouse.

Prayers for Relief.

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks I seek justice I Rocio Angelina Flamenco request the courts judgment against defendants as follows:

1.  All medical expenses, car damages, consequential and incidental including but not limited to loss of income, employment loss, damages for emotional distress in a sum according to proof.  Loss of business income.” [sic]

(Cross-Complaint.)

Attached to the Cross-Complaint is a copy of a Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing, filed June 10, 2024, case number 24STRO03408, which protects Flamenco and restrains Plaintiff to not “harass, intimidate, molest, attack, strike, stalk, threaten, assault (sexually or otherwise), hit, abuse, destroy personal property of, or disturb the peace” and stay 15 yards away from Flamenco, as well as Flamenco’s home, workplace, and vehicle.  The Restraining Order expires at midnight on June 10, 2025. 

Also attached is the request for temporary restraining order and declaration filed in that case, as well as photographs of a light colored dented vehicle and a dark colored vehicle with light discoloring along the edge of the driver’s side door.

Flamenco’s declaration filed in case number 24STRO03408 provides verbatim as follows:

On 6/10/24 at 2150 inc # 4469 I called that cops & reported a violation of the order granted Willie/attorney send someone to hit my window terrifying me.  My apt window was almost broken per person send by the defendant.  Cops arrive on 6/10/24 after I called 911 defendet had lie to law enforcement & said he had no idea who it was, documents left at my door after person sent by defendet hit my window  & scream my name was confirm send by the defedent & he is in violation of the order by this actions after the current order was served to defedent & attorney.  He was continue to harass me, intimidate me, molest, attack, defendant has contact my workplace.

My Willie Bell has continue to engage in a very disturbing behavior in which he contact my workplace & presented a lawsuit with lies & creating problems with other tenants law sue file in a different court case # 24SMCV02523.  Defedent has continue to harass me & stalk me creating a very stressful cituation which is now affecting my health.  I have contact law enforcement & they advice me to reach out to that courts because its clear he when against the order & they have also a criminal case pending but is not sufficient to make an arrest.  Criminal case has been send to the district attorney case # ID472795 DA office (310) 725-3000.  Mr Willie Bell has continue in daily basics to inteminated by opening that door daily to stalk me, when I go out he is intimidating me & using others to deliver messages & harassment.  I want to continue with my TRO & I ask the courts to please enforce it.  [sic].

(TRO Declaration attached to Cross-Complaint.)

            Although Flamenco has pleaded factual allegations that could potentially give rise to several different causes of action, the Court cannot discern what specific cause(s) of action Flamenco seeks to pursue.  As such, it is uncertain what cause(s) of action are directed against Plaintiff.

            Therefore, the Court sustains Plaintiff’s demurrer to the cross-complaint on the basis of uncertainty.

2.     LEAVE TO AMEND

A plaintiff has the burden of showing in what manner the complaint could be amended and how the amendment would change the legal effect of the complaint, i.e., state a cause of action. (See The Inland Oversight Committee v. City of San Bernardino (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 771, 779; PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v. Hulven Int'l, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 156, 189.) A plaintiff must not only state the legal basis for the amendment, but also the factual allegations sufficient to state a cause of action or claim. (See PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v. Hulven Int'l, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 189.) Moreover, a plaintiff does not meet his or her burden by merely stating in the opposition to a demurrer or motion to strike that “if the Court finds the operative complaint deficient, plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend.” (See Major Clients Agency v Diemer (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1133; Graham v. Bank of America (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 618 [asserting an abstract right to amend does not satisfy the burden].)

Here, Flamenco has failed to meet its burden as Flamenco did not file an opposition to the demurrer, and therefore does not address whether leave should be granted if the demurrer is sustained.

Notwithstanding, “Providing access to justice for self-represented litigants is a priority for California courts.”  (California Rules of Court, rule 10.960, subdivision (b).)  “[W]hen a litigant is self-represented, a judge has the discretion to take reasonable steps, appropriate under the circumstances and consistent with the law and the canons, to enable the litigant to be heard.” (See also ABA Model Code of Jud. Conduct, canon 2, rule 2.2, com. 4 [“[i]t is not a violation of this Rule [regarding impartiality and fairness] for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard”].) The canons and commentary thus provide a path to ensure a self-represented litigant can be fairly heard on the merits while the court maintains its impartiality and does not assume (or appear to assume) the role of advocate or partisan. (See Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3 [“a judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently”].)”  (Holloway v. Quetel (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1434.)

Therefore, because Flamenco has alleged facts that could give rise to a cognizable cause of action, the Court grants Flamenco leave to amend the Cross-Complaint to specify what specific cause(s) of action Flamenco seeks to pursue against Plaintiff.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, the Court sustains Plaintiff’s Demurrer to Flamenco’s Cross-Complaint with leave to amend. 

Flamenco shall file and serve an Amended Cross-Complaint in conformance with this Court’s ruling on or before December 6, 2024. 

Further, on the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the Case Management Conference from December 2, 2024 to March 19, 2025 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207.  All parties shall comply with California Rules of Court, rules 3.722, et seq., regarding Initial and Further Case Management Conferences.  In particular, all parties shall adhere to the duty to meet and confer (Rule 3.724) and to the requirement to prepare and file Case Management Statements (Rule 3.725). 

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  October 30, 2024                                                   ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court