Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV18044, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18044    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Demurrer and Motion to Strike

Moving Party:  Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff Nathalie Dahan

Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On June 2, 2022, Plaintiff Nathalie Dahan filed her Complaint against Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company on causes of action for breach of insurance contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC).

On March 6, 2023, Defendant filed: (1) Demurrer to Plaintiff’s FAC; and (2) Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s FAC.

On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed her combined opposition.

On April 24, 2023, Defendant filed its replies.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Demurrer

A.      Legal Standard

A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. 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; and for purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true, however improbable they may be. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 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 section 430.10 (grounds), section 430.30 (as to any matter on its face or from which judicial notice may be taken), and section 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 (Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f)), is disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him/her. (Khoury v. Maly's of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Moreover, even if the pleading is somewhat vague, “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Id.) 

B.      Discussion

Defendant solely demurs to the second cause of action for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

1.       Legal Standard

“A breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing involves something beyond breach of the contractual duty itself and it has been held that bad faith implies unfair dealing rather than mistaken judgment.” (Careau & Co. v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1394.)  

“If the allegations do not go beyond the statement of a mere contract breach and, relying on the same alleged acts, simply seek the same damages or other relief already claimed in a companion contract cause of action, they may be disregarded as superfluous as no additional claim is actually stated … [T]he only justification for asserting a separate cause of action for breach of the implied covenant is to obtain a tort recovery.” (Id. at pp. 1394–95.)  

To recover in tort for breach of the implied covenant, the defendant must “have acted unreasonably or without proper cause.” (Id. at p. 1395, citations and italics omitted.) 

2.       Discussion

Defendant argues that the cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing fails because Plaintiff does not allege facts to show Defendant engaged in unreasonable conduct. (Demurrer, p. 5:18–20.)

Plaintiff disagrees, pointing to the various allegations in the FAC. (Opposition, pp. 2–3.)

Defendant reiterates its argument in its Reply. (Reply to Demurrer, p. 2:4–5.)

Here, Plaintiff has alleged, among other things, that Defendant: (1) “took the unreasonable position that the [stolen] bags were ‘rented’ and not owned by [Plaintiff], essentially accusing [Plaintiff] of lying at her Examination Under Oath”; (2) acted “with the plan and intention to reduce the amount paid on claims below the reasonable sum which should have been paid to it’s [sic] policy holders”; (3) “delayed resolving this claim for over 15 months rather than promptly, properly, fairly and fully investigating the claims arising from the burglary at [Plaintiff’s] residence and unreasonably and without proper cause withheld benefits due to her under the policy of insurance”; and (4) “failed to evaluate the claim objectively, ignored evidence supporting the claim, and focused only on conjecture supposedly justifying denial of payments due to [Plaintiff] under the terms of the insurance policy”. (FAC, ¶¶ 13, 19, 21.2, 21.5.)

These allegations are sufficiently pleaded for the second cause of action to withstand demur.

C.      Conclusion

Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

II.        Motion to Strike

A.      Legal Standard

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435(b)(1)). The notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading shall quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count or defense. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1322.)¿¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or form any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437(a)). The court then may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading and strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend. (Perlman v. Mun. Ct. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 568, 575.)¿¿¿¿¿ 

B.      Discussion

Defendant moves the Court to strike Plaintiff’s facts and prayer for punitive damages, arguing the allegations do not show malice. (Motion to Strike, p. 6:17–19.) Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Strike, arguing that the pleadings are sufficient. (Opposition, p. 7:6) Defendant reiterates its argument in its Reply. (Reply to Motion to Strike, p. 2:4–5.)

The Court disagrees with Defendant’s argument. Plaintiffs are entitled to allege that Defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice, and for the purposes of a demurrer, the Court must assume that it is true. It will ultimately be Plaintiff’s burden to prove that she is entitled to the relief she seeks. 

C.      Conclusion

Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.