Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00229, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00229    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: G

Defendant Allstate’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Bin Yang

Defendant Allstate’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Bin Yang

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Allstate’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with twenty (20) days leave to amend.

Defendant Allstate’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint is deemed MOOT.

BACKGROUND

On January 26, 2023, Plaintiff Bin Yang filed a complaint against Defendant Allstate, alleging Defendant has engaged in insurance bad faith by delaying resolution of Plaintiff’s insurance claim. From September 2019 to November 2022, Defendant Allstate provided Plaintiff Bin Yang with renter’s insurance. On August 16, 2022, Plaintiff alleges Plaintiff’s former landlord broke into Plaintiff’s storage locker in El Monte and stole or removed Plaintiff’s property.

On March 7, 2023, Defendant filed the present demurrer and motion to strike. Prior to filing on March 2, Defendant’s counsel met and conferred telephonically with Plaintiff and was unable to reach a resolution. (Edson Decl., ¶ 2.)

A hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike is set for April 20, 2023. A case management conference is also set for June 13.

ANALYSIS

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s entire Complaint on the grounds of uncertainty and failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the court SUSTAINS Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend.

Legal Standard

A party may demur to a complaint on the grounds that it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (Hahn).) When considering demurrers, courts accept all well pleaded facts as true. (Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, at p. 747.)

Additionally, a demurrer to a complaint may be brought on the ground the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f); Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180, 1191.) A demurrer based on uncertainty is disfavored and will be strictly construed even when the pleading is uncertain in some respects.  (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrer for uncertainty may be sustained when a defendant cannot reasonably determine to what he or she is required to respond.  For example, when a plaintiff joins multiple causes of action as one, fails to properly identify each cause of action, or fails to state against which party each cause of action is asserted if there are multiple defendants, a complaint is uncertain.  (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

Discussion

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s Complaint is uncertain because it is not properly pled. The court agrees.

Pursuant to Rule 2.112 of the California Rules of Court, each cause of action must be separately stated with the following: “(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’).”

The present Complaint contains four sections named “Introduction,” “Facts,” “Laws,” and “Prayer.” While the Complaint uses the title “insurance bad faith” and mentions insurance bad faith, it does not identify the specific causes of action being alleged and does not list the facts supporting each cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a)(1).) It also is not properly formatted with line numbers as required by Rule 2.108 of the California Rules of Court. Last, Plaintiff’s prayer requests sanctions against Defendant but does not specify the legal authority supporting Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a)(2).) Thus, the court finds the Complaint uncertain.

Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS Defendant’s demurrer with twenty (20) days leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave given to amend

Based on the analysis above, Defendant’s motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is MOOT.