Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV22801, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV22801    Hearing Date: January 14, 2025    Dept: 34

1.               Defendant Lisa Klein’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Radu Vlad’s Complaint is SUSTAINED.

2.               Defendant Lisa Klein’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff Radu Vlad’s Complaint is DENIED as moot.

The court will inquire at the hearing whether leave to amend should be granted.

Background

            On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff Radu Vlad (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Shrikant Tamhane, Hee Sung Kim, Lisa Klein, Clarice Denmion, and Manuel Villegas (“Defendants”) arising from Plaintiff’s tenancy in Defendants’ property located at 702 ½ Walnut, F, Inglewood, CA 90301 alleging causes of action for:

1.               Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability;

2.               Negligence;

3.               Negligent Hiring;

4.               Breach of Contract;

5.               Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment;

6.               Nuisance;

7.               Business & Professions Code § 17200;

8.               Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

9.               Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress;

10.            Fraudulent Misrepresentation;

11.            Negligent Misrepresentation;

12.            Violation of Civil Code § 1940.2;

13.            Retaliatory Eviction; and

14.            Unpermitted/Illegal Unit In Violation of Common Law.

On October 14, 2024, Defendants Clarice Denmion, Shrikant Tamhane, and Hee Sung Kim filed General Denials to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On October 31, 2024, Defendant Lisa Klein (“Klein”) filed this Demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint. On November 1, 2024, Klein filed this Motion to Strike. No opposition or other responsive pleading has been filed.

1.     Demurrer

Legal Standard

            “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of” various grounds listed in statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)

            When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Ibid.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

            Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.) However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).

Discussion

            Klein demurs, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f), to all causes of action in Plaintiff’s complaint, on the basis that Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action and that it is uncertain.

CCP § 430.10(f) – Uncertainty

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f), a demurrer may be sustained if a complaint is “uncertain.” Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual allegations are confusing and do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.) “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.) “The objection of uncertainty does not go to the failure to allege sufficient facts.” (Brea v. McGlashan (1934) 3 Cal.App.2d 454, 459.) “It goes to the doubt as to what the pleader means by the facts alleged.” (Ibid.) “Such a demurrer should not be sustained where the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues which he is to meet.” (People v. Lim (1941) 18 Cal.2d 872, 882.)

            Klein argues that Plaintiff’s complaint is uncertain as to the claims Plaintiff attempts to assert against Klein. (Demurrer, at p. 3.) Klein contends that as pled, Plaintiff’s complaint makes it impossible for Klein to assert which causes of action are alleged against Klein and makes no allegations regarding Klein’s alleged role in Plaintiff’s tenancy. (Ibid.) Klein argues that Plaintiff’s complaint lumps all Defendants together failing to differentiate between the conduct of the numerous Defendants which does not allow for Klein to reasonably determine what issues must be addressed. (Id., at p. 4.)

            No opposition has been filed. 

            The court finds Plaintiff’s complaint is uncertain. Plaintiff’s allegations are alleged against five different defendants but all under the same 11 general allegations. (Complaint, ¶¶ 9-20.)  Plaintiff has not identified what causes of action he is asserting against which Defendant and under which specific allegations or conduct. Without specific identification of the types of claims asserted against each Defendant, Klein cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied and respond to the complaint. Additionally, Plaintiff’s action is brought against Klein both as an individual and as a Trustee of the Thomas and Gloria Zee Trust. From a review of the complaint, the court is unable to determine how Klein could be liable for the allegations made or in what capacity. All causes of action are asserted against all Defendants without clarifying the role each Defendant had in the alleged harm suffered by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained. Nevertheless, the court recognizes that such deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint are easily remediable by granting Plaintiff leave to amend.

Moreover, as the demurrer is sustained for uncertainty, the court need not address Klein’s additional demurring arguments.

2.               Motion to Strike

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, “the court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” The grounds for a motion to strike must “appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

Discussion

            In light of the court’s ruling on Klein’s Demurrer, Klein’s Motion to Strike is denied as moot.

Conclusion

1.               Defendant Lisa Klein’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Radu Vlad’s Complaint is SUSTAINED.

2.               Defendant Lisa Klein’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff Radu Vlad’s Complaint is DENIED as moot.

The court will inquire at the hearing whether leave to amend should be granted.