Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV01156, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01156    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: F49

DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, World Wide Specialty Programs, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: /Plaintiff, Aric Cho, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Demurrer to the “First Amended” Complaint

Motion to Strike

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On November 16, and December 7, 2022, Aric Cho, in pro per, filed a complaint and “amended” complaint against defendant World Wide Specialty Programs, Inc. with no identified cause of action. The pleadings allege the apparent placement of Plaintiff into a facility identified by Royal Gorge Academy when Plaintiff was a minor by one or both parents. During the time spent with Defendant, Plaintiff alleges a deprivation of certain rights, including “freedom of speech,” due to the inability to communicate with Plaintiff’s mother, other persons present, and removal of writing utensils.

RULING

Demurrer: Sustained with Leave to Amend.

Request for Judicial Notice: Granted in Part/Denied in Part.

The court takes judicial notice of the filed complaints, but not for the truth of the content presented in the pleadings. The court declines to take notice of any other items.

Defendant World Wide Specialty Programs, Inc., brings a demurrer to the complaint on grounds of failure to state an articulated, valid claim. Plaintiff in two oppositions filed on December 28, 2022, and February 21, 2023, states defendant “breaks” civil rights, and demands $500,000.

Defendant submitted both a non-opposition to the motion to strike, and reply to the demurrer.  Defendant reiterates the merits of the demurrer on false imprisonment and the statute of limitations, and demands for a ruling sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, due to the inability of Plaintiff of Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint curing the defects.

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) 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 applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

“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; Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 [“[U]nder our liberal pleading rules, where the complaint contains substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled or plaintiff given leave to amend.]

Both iterations of the complaint lack an identified cause of action. (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 2.112.) The court sustains the demurrer on this basis.

Aside from the lack of an identified cause of action, Defendant challenges the complaint as one for false imprisonment, and then proceeds to cite the defects in pleading said claim. The court declines to make any findings regarding the determined false imprisonment cause of action and engage in a “straw man” analysis finding flaw with the operative pleading solely on this basis.

Regardless of the arguments in the demurrer, Plaintiff submitted two oppositions to the demurrer, whereby Plaintiff describes the conduct as “federal crimes” of “kidnapping,” and “fraud.” Plaintiff also provides a summary of the alleged treatment at the facility. The court declines to take any notice of the “witness testimony” submitted with the opposition, as it is extrinsic to the parameters of the operative pleading.

Notwithstanding the lack of any identified claim, the court also finds Plaintiff potentially lacks a basis of jurisdiction with this court. Other than an apparent residence with Plaintiff’s parent(s) or guardian(s) in the jurisdiction of the court at the time of removal from the household, but presumably when Plaintiff was a minor, and Plaintiff’s current residence also presumably within the jurisdiction of the court, the operative complaint and arguments indicate Plaintiff was apparently transported across state lines to the facility where the allegedly wrongful activity took place. Plaintiff even contends the charges are “federal” in nature. The court therefore finds the jurisdictional questions constitute a second basis for sustaining the demurrer in terms of establishing proper jurisdiction against the defendant in the subject court.

The demurrer is sustained with 30 days leave to amend. The motion to strike is MOOT.

Case Management Conference set for July 3, 2023.

Defendant to give notice.