Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03541, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCV03541    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Aurora Charter Oak – Los Angeles, LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

Defendant Aurora Charter Oak – Los Angeles, LLC’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Aurora Charter Oak – Los Angeles, LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with twenty (20) days leave to amend.

Defendant Aurora Charter Oak – Los Angeles, LLC’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is deemed MOOT.

BACKGROUND

On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff Roberto Lopez filed a complaint against Defendant Aurora Charter Oak – Los Angeles, LLC (Aurora), alleging general negligence, medical negligence, and intentional torts.

On December 4, 2023, Aurora filed the present demurrer and motion to strike. Prior to filing, Aurora’s counsel attempted to meet and confer by sending a letter to Lopez on November 28. (Charles Decl., ¶ 3.) On January 24, 2024, the court continued the hearing on the present demurrer and motion to strike in order for parties to further meet and confer. On January 31, Aurora’s counsel met and conferred telephonically with Lopez. (Anderson Decl., ¶ 4(C).)

A hearing on the present demurrer and motion to strike is set for April 15, 2024, along with a case management conference. A hearing on a motion to compel is also set for June 24.

ANALYSIS

Aurora demurs to Lopez’s entire Complaint on the grounds that (1) Aurora is immune from liability pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5278, (2) Lopez’s negligence claims are duplicative, (3) the intentional tort claim fails to state a cause of action, (4) the prayer for punitive damages is improper, (5) the Complaint is insufficiently pled and uncertain, and (6) the Complaint improperly states the amount demanded. For the following reasons, the court SUSTAINS Aurora’s demurrer as the Complaint is uncertain and ambiguous.

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.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f), a party may demur to a pleading on the grounds that it is “uncertain” which requires the pleading to be “ambiguous unintelligible.” But “demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

Discussion

In this case, Aurora argues the Complaint is uncertain and inadequately pled. The court agrees. While Lopez alleges causes of action for general negligence, medical negligence, and intentional torts, the court finds Lopez fails to allege specific facts in support of each cause of action and provide those facts in a separate attachment as instructed in paragraph ten of the Complaint’s template. Without those facts, the court finds the Complaint is uncertain and ambiguous.

Accordingly, Aurora’s demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Aurora’s demurrer to Lopez’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with twenty (20) days leave to amend.

Aurora’s motion to strike is DEEMED MOOT.