Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV00006, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24TRCV00006 Hearing Date: April 17, 2024 Dept: 8
HEARING DATE: April 17, 2024
CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV00006
CASE NAME: Dwain Sutherland v. Command Guard Services, et al .
MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Renaissance Homeowner’s Association and Ross Morgan & Company
RESPONDING PARTY: None
TRIAL DATE: Not set
MOTION: (1) Demurrer
(2) Motion to Strike
Tentative Rulings: (1) Sustained with leave to amend
(2) Motion to Strike is mooted by sustaining of the Demurrer
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual
On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff Dwain Sutherland (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Command Guard Services, Inc. (“Command Guard”), Jenard Earnest Ainsworth (“Ainsworth”), Renaissance Homeowner's Association (“Renaissance HOA”), and Ross Morgan & Company (“Ross Morgan”) for (1) negligence, (2) negligent supervision, (3) negligent hiring, and (4) battery.
The Complaint alleges the following facts: On August 7, 2022, Plaintiff was in front of his residence having a conversation with Defendant Ainsworth regarding a parking citation on Plaintiffs son's vehicle parked in front of his residence. Plaintiff and Ainsworth engaged in a verbal altercation. Ainsworth, without notice or warning, struck Plaintiff in the face. (Complaint, ¶2.) Ainsworth is employed by Defendant Command Guard. (Id. at ¶9.) Plaintiff allegedly suffered bodily injuries due to the negligence, negligent hiring, and/or negligent supervision of Ainsworth by Defendants Command Guard, Ross Morgan, and Renaissance HOA. (Id. at ¶3.)
Defendants Renaissance HOA and Ross Morgan now demur to the Complaint and move to strike portions of the Complaint.
B. Procedural
On March 12, 2023, Defendants Renaissance HOA and Ross Morgan filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike. The demurrer and motion are unopposed.
II. MOVING PARTY’S GROUNDS
Defendants demur to the entire Complaint on the basis that it is uncertain, and to the third and fourth cause of action on the grounds that they are uncertain and fail to state a cause of action against the demurring defendants.
Defendants also move to strike punitive damages from the Complaint on the ground that Plaintiff fails to allege specific facts that demonstrate fraud, oppression, or malice.
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
Here, the Court finds that the Complaint is uncertain as to moving Defendants. The Complaint does not state what Plaintiff’s relationship is to Renaissance HOA or Ross Morgan, moving Defendants’ relationship to Command Guard and Ainsworth, or their basis for liability in this case. Accordingly, the Complaint is unclear and ambiguous as to how moving Defendants fit into this case.
B. Motion to Strike
The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a).)¿ The court may also strike 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.¿ (Id., § 436(b).)¿ The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws.¿ (Id., § 436.)¿ The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.¿ (Id., § 437.)¿ “When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”¿ (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.)
As the demurrer to the Complaint is sustained, the motion to strike is MOOT.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Defendant’s Motion to Strike is therefore MOOT.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.