Tentative Ruling 

HEARING DATE: May 22, 2024

 

CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV00771 

CASE NAME: Merideth Bray Montiel, et al. v. Martin Chiang, et al. 

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Martin Chiang, as an individual and trustee of the Chiang Trust 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Merideth Bray Montiel (No Opposition) 

TRIAL DATE: None Set. 

MOTION: (1) Demurrer

(2) Motion to Strike 

 

Tentative Rulings: (1) SUSTAINED, with twenty (20) days leave to amend.  

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.   

 

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.)¿¿¿ 

 

Discussion 

 

Here, Defendant demurs to the entire Complaint on the grounds Defendant notes that Plaintiff failed to sign the Complaint and thus the entirety of it is invalid as well as the entirety being uncertain for failure to name which Defendant each cause of action is being brought against. Further, Defendant demurs to each cause of action on the grounds that Defendant argues they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action.  

 

Failure to Verify Complaint  

 

The Court does take note that Plaintiffs have failed to verify their Complaint. However, the Court thinks Defendant may misinterpret the statute. The statute does not stand for the proposition that every Complaint is required to be verified. In fact, the very language of the statute indicates that a Complaint may be unverified. Code of Civil Procedure section 466, subdivision (a) reads, “[w]hen the complaint is verified, the answer shall be verified.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 466, subd. (a).) This suggests that a complaint may remain unverified. In general, complaints need not be verified unless if called for by particular statute (Murrieta Valley Unified School Dist. v. County of Riverside (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1212. (e.g., in civil actions: complaints seeking a preliminary injunction (Code Civ. Proc., § 527, subd., (a)), quiet title actions (Code Civ.  Proc., § 761.020); in special proceedings: unlawful detainer (Code Civ. Proc., § 1166), petitions for extraordinary relief (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1069, 1086, 1103), and probate petitions (Prob. Code, § 1021).) Here, Plaintiffs have not brought a pleading for any of the above, which would require the pleading to be verified. However, because Plaintiffs’ complaint does not seek damages for any of the above, the Court overrules demurrer as to this argument.  

 

Uncertainty  

 

Further, this Court notes that the Complaint, on its face, is uncertain. 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.)¿¿¿ 

 

Each cause of action must specifically state the party or parties to whom the cause of action is directed.  (California Rules of Court, Rule 2.112(4).) On review of the Complaint, the Court finds that the named parties in this case are Martin Chiang, as an individual and as trustee of the Chaing Trust, appear to both be listed in the caption of the Complaint, but that Martin Chaing, as trustee of the Chaing Trust is not differentiated from himself as an individual in the Complaint, nor in the “parties” section of the Complaint. Further, the “parties” section of the Complaint notes that Plaintiff does not know that true name, capacity, or basis for liability of defendant DOE 1, but that DOE 1 managed the day-to-day operations of the subject property from on or around 201 to the current date. (Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 5.) Despite this admission that Plaintiff(s) currently knows or does not know who DOE 1 is, Plaintiff conflates both Martin Chiang and DOE 1 to be referred to as (“Defendants”). Although this, on its own, is enough to lead to uncertainty, the Court also notes that Plaintiffs’ Complaint also alternates between using “Defendant” as well as “Defendants”. Presumably, in the event that DOE 1 was a manager or agent of Chiang, there would be different theories of liability between the owner and manager. However, Plaintiffs do not simply do this with Defendant(s), they also alternate between using Plaintiff and Plaintiffs.