Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV02090, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23TRCV02090 Hearing Date: February 20, 2024 Dept: 8
¿¿
HEARING DATE: February 20, 2024¿¿
¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV02090
¿¿
CASE NAME: Louis A. Sparks, Jr. V. Willie Bell, et al. ¿¿¿
¿¿
MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Willie Bell and Maura Bell
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Louis A. Sparks, Jr. (No Opposition)
¿¿
TRIAL DATE: None
Set.
¿¿
MOTION:¿ (1) Demurrer¿to First Amended Complaint
¿
Tentative Rulings: (1) SUSTAINED. Discuss whether another amendment could cure
the deficiencies in the pleading
¿
I. BACKGROUND¿¿
¿¿
A. Factual¿¿
¿
On June 29,
2023, Louis A. Sparks (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants,
Willie Bell, Maura Bell, Maura Sparks, Earl L Coats, Davita Dialysis, Robert
Sparks, Lois Sparks, Dennis Sparks, Wesslyn L. Hamilton, Edward E. Sarks.
Matrae L. Sparks, Marcus O. Sparks, Joyce R. Sparks, Edelberto Ysaguirre, and
Hilberto Ysaguirre (“Defendants”). The Complaint appeared to allege a cause of
action for Murder.
On October 3,
2023, this Court sustained the Defendants’ demurrer to the original complaint.
On January
11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of
action for: (1) Personal Injury; (2) Property Damage; and (3) Wrongful Death.
Defendant,
Wesslyn L. Hamilton (“Hamilton”) now files a demurrer as to the FAC.
B. Procedural¿¿
On August 31, 2023, Defendant Hamilton
filed this demurrer to the FAC. To date, no opposition has been filed. On
February 9, 2024, Defendant Hamilton filed a notice of non-opposition.
¿II. MOVING PARTY’S GROUNDS
Defendant Hamilton demurs to
Plaintiff’s FAC on the grounds that Hamilton argues: (1) Plaintiff’s complaint
fails under Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(e) because Plaintiff fails to
state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action; (2) Plaintiff’s
complaint fails under Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(f) because plaintiff’s
allegations are impermissibly vague and uncertain; and (3) it appears on the
face of the complaint that the lawsuit is time-barred.
III. ANALYSIS¿
A.
Legal
Standard
A demurrer can be
used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under
attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank
v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint
need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary
fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be
alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53
Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of
action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry
v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does
not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v.
Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)¿¿¿
¿¿
A pleading is
uncertain if it is ambiguous or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10,
subd. (f).) A demurrer for uncertainty may lie if the failure to label the
parties and claims renders the complaint so confusing defendant cannot tell
what he or she is supposed to respond to.¿ (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition
Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.) However, “[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.)¿¿
B.
Discussion
Previously, this Court sustained demurrer because this Court could
not gather, on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint, what allegations he was
alleging. This Court noted that it was unable to comprehend what causes of
action Plaintiff was alleging against the various Defendants, and even if he
did the original Complaint presented no facts in which he based his allegations
on.
Here, it does not appear that Plaintiff has remedied the prior
deficiencies identified by this Court. Plaintiff’s FAC now states that
Plaintiff is alleging causes of action for Personal Injury, Property Damage, and
Wrongful Death. Plaintiff also continues to cite to Penal Code 187 which would
be alleging murder, a crime, as a civil cause of action. However, Plaintiff
still does not state any facts upon which he relies on for each of these causes
of action. Instead, Plaintiff merely cites to numerous Defendants again and asserts
that he is alleging that Louis A Sparks, Sr., and Alvin L. Sparks were murdered
for insurance and oil, gas, and mineral leases in Cass County, Texas. Plaintiff
also attaches numerous exhibits which Plaintiff seems to be relying on to speak
for themselves. However, that is not how a Plaintiff can allege factual
allegations in a well-pleaded complaint.
It is not for the defendants or the Court to divine from attachments or
exhibits what a plaintiff alleges the defendants did or failed to do to give
rise to a personal injury or wrongful death claim. One of the attachments to the FAC indicates that
Plaintiff’s father died in 1992, over 30 years before this lawsuit was
filed. Under California Code of Civil
Procedure section 335.1, a suit for the alleged wrongful death of a parent must
be brought within two years of the parent’s death. While there are some exceptions to the two-year
limitation period, the exception(s) must be alleged in the lawsuit in order for
it to survive a demurrer.
Plaintiff must allege facts to which he relies on as to each cause of
action, which has numerous elements that must be pleaded in order to maintain a
cause of action. Plaintiff does not state any facts to which he bases his
allegations on. As such, Plaintiff must plead all elements as to each cause of
action, including: Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death, and Penal
Code § 187(a). Because Plaintiff has failed to do so again, this Court SUSTAINS
demurrer. Plaintiff will be required to show this Court how he plans to amend a
future pleading against the named Defendants. Otherwise, Plaintiff will not be
granted leave to amend.