Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 25SMCV00568, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25SMCV00568    Hearing Date: June 11, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This case arises from a dispute between landlord and tenant. 

On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff Diane Golden (“Plaintiff”) brought suit against Defendant Flavia Sparacino (“Defendant”) alleging eight causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) violation of Civil Code section 1950.5; (3) violation of Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4.56.020; (4) violation of Civil Code section 1942.5; (5) violation of Civil Code section 1940.2; (6) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment and implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7) unfair business practices; and (8) financial elder abuse.

On April1 4, 2025, Defendant cross-complained against Plaintiff, checking off causes of action for Apportionment of Fault, Indemnification, and Declaratory Relief in the caption, and alleging Plaintiff breached the lease agreement by failing to pay rent in a timely manner, vacate the premises in a timely manner, and refusing to allow Defendant to access her storage unit located on the premises.

Plaintiff now demurs to the cross-complaint.  Defendant has filed a notice of intent to amend the Cross-Complaint, but has not timely filed an amended cross-complaint. 

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.) 

Here, the Cross-Complaint uses the judicial council form for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, and checks causes of action for apportionment of fault, indemnification, and declaratory relief in the caption.  But Cross-Complainant does not check boxes 7, 8 or 9 in the body of the Cross-Complaint. 

Instead, the box is checked indicating “The following additional causes of action are attached and the statements below apply to each.”  The only box checked below is “other” and states “Cross-defendant breached the lease agreement by failing to pay rent in a timely manner and to vacate the premises in a timely manner, refusing to allow cross-complainant access to her storage unit located on the premises.”  Yet, there are no attachments to the cross-complaint, and the cross-complaint does not clearly state any causes of action.  In particular, Cross-Complainant has failed to allege ultimate facts substantiating a claim for breach of lease.[1] 

As such, neither Plaintiff nor the Court can reasonably determine what causes of action are raised, what issues must be admitted or denied, or what claims are directed against Plaintiff.  Therefore, the Court sustains Plaintiff’s demurrer 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, Cross-Complainant has failed to meet this burden as Cross-Complainant has not opposed the demurrer and therefore does not address whether leave should be granted if the demurrer is sustained.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, the Court sustains Cross-Defendant’s demurrer to the cross-complaint without leave to amend.   

Cross-Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. 

DATED:  June 11, 2025                                                         ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court