Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2021-01235554, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Demurrer to Amended Complaint

Defendant Tatyana Nicole Reid’s demurrer to first amended complaint is OVERRULED in its entirety.

Defendant shall answer the first amended complaint within 10 days.

To the extent defendant has brought this demurrer on the ground the first amended complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e)), defendant has failed to present any argument or citation to authority in support of the objection. Instead, defendant simply concludes that the first amended complaint is entirely devoid of any facts (Dem. P&As at p. 4), which is not true (see FAC, in passim), and argues only that its demurrer should be sustained on the ground of uncertainty. (See Dem. P&As at pp. 2-4.) Defendant has failed to present any argument as to what, if any, elements are missing from which cause of action, and further fails to so much as cite to a single authority for the elements of any claim.

It is not the court’s function to act as counsel and develop a party’s arguments for her. The court “therefore need not consider undeveloped challenges” and may treat them as waived. (City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1099; Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368.)

To the extent defendant has brought this demurrer on the ground of uncertainty, it fails because the first amended complaint alleges numerous facts from which defendant can reasonably ascertain the bases for each claim. In other words, the first amended complaint is not “so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) Any “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.)

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

Defendant shall give notice.