Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCV00146, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV00146 Hearing Date: August 18, 2022 Dept: SEC
SANCHEZ v. WIA LA, LLC
CASE NO.: 22NWCV00146
HEARING: 08/18/22
JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES
#4
TENTATIVE ORDER
Specially Appearing
Defendant RANDY WANG’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.
Moving Party to give
notice.
The parties’ Requests for Judicial Notice are GRANTED.
(Cal. Ev. Code §452.)
This breach of
contract action was filed by Plaintiffs GLORIA SANCHEZ and RUTH HOWARD
(“Plaintiffs”) on March 2, 2022. On April 8, 2022, the operative First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) was filed.
The FAC asserts the
following causes of action: (1) Private Nuisance; (2) Negligence; (3) Breach of
Warranty of Habitability; (4) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing; (5) Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (6) Violation of CA
Civ. Code §1942.4; Wrongful Rent Collection.
Specially Appearing
Defendant RANDY WANG (“Wang”) specially and generally demurs to Plaintiffs’
entire FAC.
As to the Entire FAC – Uncertainty
“A special demurrer for uncertainty is not intended to reach the failure
to incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading, but is directed at the
uncertainty existing in the allegations actually made.” (Butler v. Sequeira
(1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 143, 145-146.) However, although demurrers for
uncertainty are disfavored, they will be sustained where the pleading is so bad
that the defendant/cross-defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e. he or she
cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what
counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of
Calif. Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) 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. (Ibid.)
C.R.C. Rule 2.112 provides, as follows: “Each separately stated cause of
action, count, or defense must specifically state: (1) its number (e.g., ‘first
cause of action’); (2) its nature (e.g., ‘for fraud’); (3) The party asserting
it if more than one party is represented on the pleading (e.g., ‘by plaintiff
Jones’); and (4) The party or parties to whom it is being directed (e.g.,
‘against defendant Smith’).” Pleadings that jumble together multiple distinct
causes of action may be subject to a demurrer for uncertainty. (See Zumbrun
v. University of Southern California (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1, 9.)
Wang argues that the FAC is uncertain because it fails to sufficiently allege
any facts against Wang. The Court agrees that Wang’s liability as an individual
is not sufficiently alleged. Indeed, Plaintiff’s counsel states in Opposition
that “after Plaintiffs filed their [FAC], defense counsel discovered an updated
lease with Defendant’s Wang’s name on it. [¶] Because of this, Plaintiffs filed
a Doe amendment adding Defendant to this action.” (Opp. 2:25-27.). Thus, it is
clear that Wang was not an intended defendant at the time the FAC was drafted.
The demurrer for uncertainty is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.