SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

1. Background 

Plaintiff, Terrance Robinson (“Plaintiff”), who is in pro per, filed this action against Defendant Mental Health America of Los Angeles, erroneously sued as Crossroads Village Apartments (“Defendant”).  

Defendant now demurs to the complaint, contending that the complaint is improperly pled, vague and ambiguous, and fails to allege any facts sufficient to support a claim against Defendant.   

 

2. Meet and Confer 

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.  (CCP § 430.41(a).)   

The Court finds Defendant did not fulfil this requirement prior to filing the demurrer. Mailing a letter on July 24, 2023 to Plaintiff, just four days before filing the instant motion, does not satisfy CCP § 430.41, which provides that the parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due, and that the parties shall meet and confer in person or by telephone. However, an insufficient meet and confer process is not grounds to¿overrule or sustain a demurrer.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(4).) Therefore, although Defendant’s meet and confer attempt is insufficient, the Court will consider Defendant’s motion on the merits. 

 

3. Demurrer 

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 (complaint, answer or cross-complaint).  (CCP §§ 422.10, 589; see Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)  It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purposes of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true.  (Donabedian, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.) 

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, 318; Donabedian, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at 994.)  No other extrinsic evidence can be considered.  (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881 [error for court to consider facts asserted in memorandum supporting demurrer]; see also Afuso v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 859, 862 [disapproved on other grounds in Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287] [error to consider contents of release not part of court record].) 

The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages.”  (Johnson v. Prasad (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 74, 78.) Plaintiff, using Judicial Council form, marks a cause of action for general negligence, and alleges “Plaintiff suffered broken jaw in 2 places a broken hand and spent 30 days in the hospital because of proffessional [sic] negligence by Cross Roads Village Apartments.” (Compl. at p. 3.) Aside from this single sentence, there is no date of injury, or any other ultimate facts to apprise Defendant of the basis for Plaintiff’s complaint. In sum, the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendant’s demurrer, therefore, is sustained in its entirety.  

 

4. Leave to Amend 

The burden is on Plaintiffs to show in what manner he or she can amend the complaint, and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349; Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723, 742.)  Plaintiff does not oppose the demurrer.  

However, when a demurrer is sustained, the Court determines whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318). "Where the defect raised by a motion to strike or by demurrer is reasonably capable of cure, leave to amend is routinely and liberally granted to give the plaintiff a chance to cure the defect in question."  (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1146.) The Court finds there is a reasonable possibility the complaint can be cured to state a claim against Defendant.    

 

Therefore, Defendant’s demurrer to the complaint is sustained with twenty (20) days leave to amend.