Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCV00146, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00146    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: SEC


CASE NO.:  22NWCV00146  

HEARING:  08/18/22






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.