Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00024459-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 18, 2024

01/19/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2022-00024459-CU-WT-CTL LINGENFELTER VS BANK OF ENGLAND [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT BANK OF ENGLAND'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Plaintiff Michael James Lingenfelter ('Plaintiff') is a pro per litigant. 'Pro. per. litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.' (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.) Defendant BANK OF ENGLAND ('Defendant') demurs based on the assertion that the complaint is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible, citing CCP section 425.10(f). A complaint must contain '[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.' (Code Civ.

Proc., § 425.10(a)(1).) California Rules of Court Rule 2.112 states: 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 directed (e.g., 'against defendant Smith').

(CA ST TR COURT Rule 2.112.) Plaintiff fails to comply with California Rules of Court Rule 2.112 because Plaintiff does not identify the party or parties to whom each cause of action is directed.

However, Plaintiff does allege, after alleging, inter alia, 'the acts of each Defendant are legally attributable to the other Defendants,' '[h]ereafter in the Complaint, unless otherwise specified, reference to a Defendant or Defendants shall refer to all Defendants, and each of them.' (Complaint, ¶¶ 4-5.) Nonetheless, it is still not clear to whom each cause of action is directed.

Further, the Court agrees the allegations are confusing and fail to indicate under which authorities the claims are brought. Plaintiff's causes of action need to be clearer to enable Defendant to know how to defend itself. Plaintiff's opposition fails to address these issues. The Court sustains the demurrer.

'Unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion [...] Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule....' (McDonald v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 297, 303-04.) The face of the complaint does not reveal that the complaint is incapable of amendment. Plaintiff is granted ten (10) days leave to amend.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3015749  65