Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV14999, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14999    Hearing Date: October 12, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Gurmit Paul

Resp. Party:    None

The Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.  The case is Dismissed. 

BACKGROUND:

On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff Meera Paul filed her Complaint against Defendants County of Los Angeles and Gurmit Paul on a cause of action for declaratory relief.

On September 14, 2023, Defendant Gurmit Paul (“Defendant”) filed her Demurrer to Complaint (“Demurrer”).

On October 5, 2023, Defendant filed her Reply.

No opposition or other response was filed to the Demurrer.

ANALYSIS:

I.          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.)

II.       Discussion

Defendant demurs to the Complaint, arguing that Plaintiff has fallen short of stating a cause of action on which she rightfully may obtain declaratory relief. (Demurrer, pp. 7:28, 8:1–2.)

Plaintiff has not opposed the Demurrer.

The Court agrees with Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff has not sufficiently stated a cause of action. Specifically, it is unclear on what bases Plaintiff seeks (1) a judicial declaration that Plaintiff may authorize a doctor to perform a private autopsy on a deceased individual at Plaintiff’s sole expense and (2) a mandatory injunction ordering Defendant County of Los Angeles to release to Plaintiff the specimens collected from the deceased individual. (Complaint, p. 3:16–22.)

Plaintiff is represented by counsel but has not opposed this demurrer.  The Court’s tentative indicated that if Plaintiff wished leave to amend the complaint, counsel could request that at the hearing.  However, neither Plaintiff nor her counsel appeared at the hearing to request that leave to amend be granted.

III.     Conclusion

The Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.  The case is Dismissed. 

No appearance from P