Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV44946, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44946    Hearing Date: January 3, 2023    Dept: 29

Moheb Samuel v. Frontier Mission Fellowship, Inc., et al.

 

Tuesday, January 3, 2023

 

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV44946

UNOPPOSED 

Shape 

Demurrer with Motion to Strike filed by Defendant Frontier Mission Fellowship, Inc.

Shape 

 

Background 

 

On December 8, 2021, Plaintiff Moheb Samuel filed a complaint against Defendants Frontier Mission Fellowship, Inc., U.S. Center for World Missions dba Judson International School, and Palomar Baptist Camp, Inc., alleging four causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) negligence, (3) premises liablity, and (4) negligence per se. The complaint alleges that defendants negligently, recklessly, intentionally, wantonly, and/or unreasonably conducted a night game at camp around an active burning firepit, crowded by campers, at the Doane Valley Site, in direct violation of the California Code of Regulations § 4319 which states that “No Person shall engage in games or recreational activities that endanger the safety of person, property, resources or interfere with visitor activities except as permitted by the Department.” During the activity, plaintiff fell into an active burning firepit causing him to suffer burns to his left hand and his left back.

On September 29, 2022, Defendant filed a demurrer with motion to strike. No opposition has been filed.

 

Summary 

 

Moving Arguments 

 

Defendant demurs to the fourth cause of action for negligence per se in the complaint, arguing that Complaint fails to specify all alleged statutory violations with his use of “among others” and it is uncertain.  Defendant also moves to strike portions of the complaint using language for punitive damages contained in Civil Code section 3294, arguing because it is a religious corporation, CCP §¿425.14 requires Plaintiff to obtain leave of court before alleging punitive damages.

 

Opposing Arguments 

 

None filed.

 

Reply Arguments 

 

None filed.

  

Legal Standard 

           

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law ….” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525).) 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. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.) 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, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) 

 

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.) A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) 

 

Meet and Confer 

 

The demurrer and motion to strike are accompanied by the declaration of Thomas M. Regan which satisfies the meet and confer requirements. (Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a).)

 

Request for Judicial Notice

 

Defendant requests judicial notice of its California Registry Verification Details. (Regan Decl., Exh. D.)

 

The request for judicial notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452(c) and (h).

 

Discussion

 

A.     Demurrer

Defendant demurs to the fourth cause of action for negligence per se in the complaint, arguing that Complaint fails to specify all alleged statutory violations with his use of “among others.”

 “The doctrine of negligence per se … codifies the rule that a presumption of negligence arises from the violation of a statute which was enacted to protect a class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member against the type of harm that the plaintiff suffered as a result of the violation.” (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1285.)

The complaint provides that: Defendant negligently and/or intentionally committed and/or assisted in the commission of the following Statutory Violations, among others: California Code of Regulations § 4319 which states that “No Person shall engage in games or recreational activities that endanger the safety of person, property, resources or interfere with visitor activities except as permitted by the Department”, California Code of Regulations § 4302 which states that “No person shall use [] any portion of a unit under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation for which a use fee has been established by the Department, without paying such fee, California Code of Regulations § 4311 which states “No person shall light, build, use, or maintain a fire within unit except in a [] fireplace provided, maintained, or designated for such purpose, unless by authority of the Department”, and various other federal, state, municipal, county and other local Statutory Violations.

To the extent the fourth cause of action in the complaint for negligence per se cites to the above statutes, the Court finds that Plaintiff has properly alleged the statutes violated for a negligence per se cause of action. A general demurrer does not lie to only part of a cause of action. If there are sufficient allegations to entitle plaintiff to relief, other allegations cannot be challenged by general demurrer. (Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1167.)  As such, the allegation relating to the statutes cited above sufficiently entitle Plaintiff to relief. Thus, the demurrer to the cause of action for negligence per se is OVERRULED.

 

            Uncertainty

 

A demurrer to a complaint may also be brought on the ground the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible.  (Code of 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.)   

 

Here, the complaint: (1) does not join multiple causes of action as one; (2) properly identifies each cause of action; and (3) identifies the party each cause of action is asserted against.  Defendant fails to demonstrate that the allegations are so uncertain or unintelligible that they cannot determine what issues to admit or deny.   

 

Defendant’s demurrer based on uncertainty is OVERRULED.   

 

B. Motion to Strike

Legal Standard

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435(b)(1).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436; Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.) 

 

Discussion

 

Defendant also moves to strike portions of the complaint using language for punitive damages contained in Civil Code section 3294, arguing because it is a religious corporation, Code of Civil Procedure section¿425.14 requires Plaintiff to obtain leave of court before alleging punitive damages.

 

To state a claim for punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that the defendant has been guilty of malice, oppression or fraud. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.) The basis for punitive damages must be pled with specificity; conclusory allegations devoid of any factual assertions are insufficient. (Id.) A motion to strike may lie where the facts alleged, if proven, would not support a finding that the defendant acted with malice, fraud or oppression. (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 53, 63.)  

 

“Malice” is defined in section 3294(c)(1) as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury” or “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” “Oppression” is defined in section 3294(c)(2) as “despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” The term “despicable” has been defined in the case law as actions that are “base,” “vile,” or “contemptible.” (See, e.g., Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 847, 891.)  

 

To prove that a defendant acted with “willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others,” it is not enough to prove negligence, gross negligence or even recklessness. (Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 82, 87.) Rather, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that “the defendant acted in such an outrageous and reprehensible manner that the jury could infer that he [or she] knowingly disregarded the substantial certainty of injury to others.” (Id. at 90). Further, the allegations must be sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Defendant’s conduct was “despicable” defined as “base, vile or contemptible.” (College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704, 725.)

 

CCP §¿425.14 provides that “[n]o claim for punitive or exemplary damages against a religious corporation or religious corporation sole shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive or exemplary damages to be filed…”  (CCP §¿425.14.) 

 

Defendant references its Request for Judicial Notice in support of its qualification as a religious corporation.

 

As Defendant is a religious corporation, the Court finds that Plaintiff must comply with CCP §¿425.14 if he seeks to allege punitive damages against Defendant.

 

Conclusion

 

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages is GRANTED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TENTATIVE

 

Defendant Frontier Mission Fellowship, Inc.’s demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages is GRANTED.

 

Legal Standard 

           

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law ….” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525).) 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. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.) 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, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) 

 

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.) A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) 

 

Meet and Confer 

 

The demurrer and motion to strike are accompanied by the declaration of Thomas M. Regan which satisfies the meet and confer requirements. (Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a).)

 

Request for Judicial Notice

 

Defendant requests judicial notice of its California Registry Verification Details. (Regan Decl., Exh. D.)

 

The request for judicial notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452(c) and (h).

 

Discussion

 

A.     Demurrer

Defendant demurs to the fourth cause of action for negligence per se in the complaint, arguing that Complaint fails to specify all alleged statutory violations with his use of “among others.”

 “The doctrine of negligence per se … codifies the rule that a presumption of negligence arises from the violation of a statute which was enacted to protect a class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member against the type of harm that the plaintiff suffered as a result of the violation.” (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1285.)

The complaint provides that: Defendant negligently and/or intentionally committed and/or assisted in the commission of the following Statutory Violations, among others: California Code of Regulations § 4319 which states that “No Person shall engage in games or recreational activities that endanger the safety of person, property, resources or interfere with visitor activities except as permitted by the Department”, California Code of Regulations § 4302 which states that “No person shall use [] any portion of a unit under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation for which a use fee has been established by the Department, without paying such fee, California Code of Regulations § 4311 which states “No person shall light, build, use, or maintain a fire within unit except in a [] fireplace provided, maintained, or designated for such purpose, unless by authority of the Department”, and various other federal, state, municipal, county and other local Statutory Violations.

To the extent the fourth cause of action in the complaint for negligence per se cites to the above statutes, the Court finds that Plaintiff has properly alleged the statutes violated for a negligence per se cause of action. A general demurrer does not lie to only part of a cause of action. If there are sufficient allegations to entitle plaintiff to relief, other allegations cannot be challenged by general demurrer. (Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1167.)  As such, the allegation relating to the statutes cited above sufficiently entitle Plaintiff to relief. Thus, the demurrer to the cause of action for negligence per se is OVERRULED.

 

            Uncertainty

 

A demurrer to a complaint may also be brought on the ground the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible.  (Code of 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.)   

 

Here, the complaint: (1) does not join multiple causes of action as one; (2) properly identifies each cause of action; and (3) identifies the party each cause of action is asserted against.  Defendant fails to demonstrate that the allegations are so uncertain or unintelligible that they cannot determine what issues to admit or deny.   

 

Defendant’s demurrer based on uncertainty is OVERRULED.   

 

B. Motion to Strike

Legal Standard

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435(b)(1).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436; Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.) 

 

Discussion

 

Defendant also moves to strike portions of the complaint using language for punitive damages contained in Civil Code section 3294, arguing because it is a religious corporation, Code of Civil Procedure section¿425.14 requires Plaintiff to obtain leave of court before alleging punitive damages.

 

To state a claim for punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that the defendant has been guilty of malice, oppression or fraud. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.) The basis for punitive damages must be pled with specificity; conclusory allegations devoid of any factual assertions are insufficient. (Id.) A motion to strike may lie where the facts alleged, if proven, would not support a finding that the defendant acted with malice, fraud or oppression. (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 53, 63.)  

 

“Malice” is defined in section 3294(c)(1) as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury” or “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” “Oppression” is defined in section 3294(c)(2) as “despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” The term “despicable” has been defined in the case law as actions that are “base,” “vile,” or “contemptible.” (See, e.g., Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 847, 891.)  

 

To prove that a defendant acted with “willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others,” it is not enough to prove negligence, gross negligence or even recklessness. (Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 82, 87.) Rather, a plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that “the defendant acted in such an outrageous and reprehensible manner that the jury could infer that he [or she] knowingly disregarded the substantial certainty of injury to others.” (Id. at 90). Further, the allegations must be sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Defendant’s conduct was “despicable” defined as “base, vile or contemptible.” (College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704, 725.)

 

CCP §¿425.14 provides that “[n]o claim for punitive or exemplary damages against a religious corporation or religious corporation sole shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive or exemplary damages to be filed…”  (CCP §¿425.14.) 

 

Defendant references its Request for Judicial Notice in support of its qualification as a religious corporation.

 

As Defendant is a religious corporation, the Court finds that Plaintiff must comply with CCP §¿425.14 if he seeks to allege punitive damages against Defendant.

 

Conclusion

 

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages is GRANTED.