Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV02924, Date: 2024-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02924    Hearing Date: September 12, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Alexandria Housing Partners (erroneously sued as The Alexandria Apartment Homes Partnership)           

RESPONDING PARTY:        Unopposed

Demurrer to Complaint

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this demurrer.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Alexandria Housing Partners (erroneously sued as The Alexandria Apartment Homes Partnership) (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order sustaining its demurrer to the sole cause of action alleged by plaintiff Yolanda Robins (“Plaintiff”) in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the cause of action for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) (the “ADA”) because it is ambiguous and unintelligible, and therefore uncertain.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)

The court also sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the cause of action for violation of the ADA because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since, to the extent that Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant has violated Title III of the ADA, Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that (1) Plaintiff has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, and (2) Plaintiff was denied public accommodations by Defendant because of that disability.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Compl., p. 2:1-6 [requesting accommodations for people with disabilities]; Martin v. Thi E-Commerce, LLC (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 521, 528 [elements of Title III discrimination claim under ADA].)  

The burden is on the plaintiff “to articulate how it could amend its pleading to render it sufficient.”¿ (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.)¿ To satisfy that burden, a plaintiff “must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.”¿ (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)  Plaintiff did not file an opposition or other papers requesting that the court grant them leave to amend the Complaint.  Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff has not met their burden to articulate how they could amend the Complaint to render it sufficient.  The court therefore sustains Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend.

ORDER

            The court sustains defendant Alexandria Housing Partners, erroneously sued as The Alexandria Apartment Homes Partnership’s demurrer to plaintiff Yolanda Robin’s Complaint without leave to amend.

            The court orders defendant Alexandria Housing Partners, erroneously sued as The Alexandria Apartment Homes Partnership, to prepare, serve, and lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal within 10 days of the date of this order.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (f)(1).)

            The court sets an Order to Show Cause re dismissal (after sustaining demurrer without leave to amend) for hearing on December 11, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

            The court orders defendant Alexandria Housing Partners, erroneously sued as The Alexandria Apartment Homes Partnership, to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 12, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court