Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 30-2022-0127223, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling
Please Note: The hearing on this matter is scheduled for 8:30 A.M.
Demurrer
Defendant San Young Market, Inc. dba T & K Food Market’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED, with 24 days leave to amend.
Defendant Price Zone dba J&S International’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED, with 24 days leave to amend.
Defendant San Young Market, Inc. dba T&K Food Market (Defendant San Young) demurs to the complaint filed by Plaintiff Homelink Catering. Defendant Price Zone dba J&S International (Defendant Price Zone) joins in the demurrer of Defendant San Yong.
Standard for Demurrer
In ruling on a demurrer, a court must accept as true all allegations of fact contained in the complaint. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the affected pleading, not the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading or the pleader’s ability to prove those allegations. (Cundiff v. GTE Cal., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404-05.)
Questions of fact cannot be decided on demurrer. (Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1556.) Because a demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the complaint, a court will not consider facts that have not been alleged in the complaint unless they may be reasonably inferred from the matters alleged or are proper subjects of judicial notice. (Hall v. Great W. Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 713, 718 fn.7.)
Although courts should take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints, (see Code Civ. Proc., § 452), it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defendant of what plaintiff is complaining, and what remedies are being sought, (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 413). Bare conclusions of law devoid of any facts are insufficient to withstand demurrer. (Schmid v. City and County of San Francisco (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 470, 481; see Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a).)
“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.) Demurrers for uncertainty “are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) “[A] demurrer for uncertainty will not be sustained where the facts claimed to be uncertain or ambiguous are presumptively within the knowledge of the demurring party.” (Ching v. Dy Foon (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 129, 136.)
San Young’s Demurrer
Although demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, the court must grant the demurrer in this case. Even giving the Complaint a liberal reading, it is so incomprehensible that the defendants cannot reasonably respond to it. This is not an issue that can be resolved through discovery; the deficiencies make it difficult if not impossible for Defendants to respond because it is not clear what claims are being asserted and what relief is being requested.
For example, it is impossible to determine whether the Complaint alleges one, two, or three causes of action. On the third page of the Complaint, the Plaintiff only checks the box for “Products Liability.” (See ROA #1 at p. 3, ¶ 10.) However, Plaintiff includes in the Complaint the attachments for causes of action for both general negligence and products liability causes of action. (See id. at pp. 3-4.) Finally, on the fourth page of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that its injury was related to a strict liability cause of action, a negligence cause of action, and a breach of warranty cause of action. (See id. at p. 4.)
In addition, the Complaint is brought on behalf of “Homelink Catering” but there is no indication whether Homelink is the fictitious business name of a natural person or an artificial entity. If Homelink Catering is the former, the Complaint does not state who the natural person is. Finally, the Complaint seeks damages for personal injuries to “my son” but does not plead the identity of the son or the parent, or the relationship either of them have to Homelink Catering.
Further, while Plaintiff appears to be claiming a loss of income, it failed to allege what income was lost and why it was lost. Plaintiff asserts that an explosion of a gas stove occurred, but does not state that it was unable to conduct business, much less how the income loss came about, how long it lasted, and the extent to which Plaintiff was damaged.
Even if the court were to assume that three claims are stated, there are substantial and significant allegations missing as to each cause of action. The elements of a negligence cause of action are the existence of a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) Here, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant San Young owed her a duty of care or how it breached that duty of care.
“‘The elements of a strict products liability cause of action are a defect in the manufacture or design of the product or a failure to warn, causation, and injury.’ More specifically, plaintiff must ordinarily show: ‘(1) the product is placed on the market; (2) there is knowledge that it will be used without inspection for defect; (3) the product proves to be defective; and (4) the defect causes injury . . . .’” (Nelson v. Superior Court (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 689, 695.) In this case, Plaintiff does not allege what the defect in the product was or how that defect caused Plaintiff’s injuries.
Finally, there are no allegations whatsoever regarding breach of warranty. Taking all of these deficiencies together, the court finds that the Complaint is uncertain. But each possible cause of action is deficient in its own right and the court sustains the demurrer as to each cause of action on its own (and not just for uncertainty).
Price Zone’s Joinder
For the reasons that the court sustains the demurrer of Defendant San Young, the court also sustains the demurrer of Defendant Price Zone.
The demurrer of Defendant Price Zone also must be sustained because Defendant Price Zone appears nowhere in the Complaint. Defendant Price Zone is not listed as a party and no allegations are made against it.
Based on filings by Defendant Price Zone, it appears that Plaintiff filed the Complaint with the court and then afterwards, amended the Complaint to add Defendant Price Zone without leave of the court and served that amended version of the Complaint on Defendant Price Zone. If this is the case, the court admonishes Plaintiff that this is improper conduct that may lead to sanctions.
Defendant San Young shall give notice of this ruling.