Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV16883, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16883    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:                 Demurrer

Moving Party:          Defendants Kieu Hoang, Kieu Hoang Winery, LLC, and Raas Nutritionals, LLC (“Defendants”)

Resp. Party:             Plaintiff Nguyen Huynh Bao Tri aka John Tri Nguyen

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Kieu Hoang, Kieu Hoang Winery, LLC, and Raas Nutritionals, LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Nguyen Huynh Bao Tri aka John Tri Nguyen’s Complaint is DENIED as MOOT.

I.           BACKGROUND

On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff Nguyen Huynh Bao Tri aka John Tri Nguyen filed a complaint against Defendants Kieu Hoang, Kieu Hoang Winery, LLC, and Raas Nutritionals, LLC alleging the following causes of action.

1.           Libel Per Se Civ. Code § 45(a)

2.           Slander Civ. Code § 46

3.           Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; and;

4.           Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

On July 15, 2022, Defendants Kieu Hoang, Kieu Hoang Winery, LLC, and Raas Nutritionals, LLC demurred to Nguyen’s Complaint in its entirety.

On July 26, 2022, Nguyen opposed Defendants’ demurrer.

On August 3, 2022, Defendants replied to Nguyen’s opposition.

On September 12, 2022, Nguyen filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants, alleging the following causes of action.

1.           Libel Per Se Civ. Code § 45(a)

2.           Slander Civ. Code § 46

3.           Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; and;

4.           Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

II.        ANALYSIS

A.          Legal Standard

A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. (Cty. of Fresno v. Shelton (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 996, 1008–09; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party’s pleading. It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint. (Unruh-Haxton v. Regents of Univ. of California (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 343, 365, as modified (May 15, 2008).) For purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true, however improbable they may be. (CCP §§ 422.10, 589.)

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.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no “speaking demurrers”). A demurrer is brought under Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10 (grounds), § 430.30 (as to any matter on its face or from which judicial notice may be taken), and § 430.50(a) (can be taken to the entire complaint or any cause of action within).

A demurrer may be brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. A demurrer for uncertainty may be brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f). “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) “In general, ‘demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.’” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

B.          Discussion

Defendants filed their First Amended Complaint on September 12, 2022. The Court finds that Defendants’ demurrer to Nguyen’s Complaint of May 20, 2022 is MOOT.

III.     CONCLUSION

Defendants Kieu Hoang, Kieu Hoang Winery, LLC, and Raas Nutritionals, LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Nguyen Huynh Bao Tri aka John Tri Nguyen’s Complaint is DENIED as MOOT.