Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV23216, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23216    Hearing Date: August 16, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s demurrer to the complaint is OVERRULED.

Background 

On June 22, 2021, Plaintiff Miguel Angel Saucedo Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants FSC Corporation dba II Pastaio, Inc. (“Defendant”), Umberto & Babette Savone Living Trust, Golden Canon LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, alleging causes of action for negligence and premises liability, stemming from a slip-and-fall that occurred when Plaintiff was on Defendant’s premises.

On July 20, 2023, Defendant FSC Corporation DBA Il Pastaio, Inc. filed a demurrer. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

A general demurrer 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.) 

Demurrers for uncertainty are “disfavored” and will be sustained “only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.”  (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.)  A complaint need not be “a model of clarity” and must only contain sufficient allegations to put the defendants on notice of the claims against them.  (Id.)  As the Court of Appeal has observed, “where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, … ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.”  (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)  In addition, a “demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled when the facts as to which the complaint is uncertain are presumptively with the defendant’s knowledge.”  (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822; see also 1 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶¶7:85-7:86.)

Meet and Confer

The demurrer is accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Defendant demurs to the Complaint on two grounds.

First, Defendant argues that the workers compensation system provides the exclusive remedy for Plaintiff because the injuries alleged in the Complaint occurred at work.  Employees injured in the course of their employment are limited to the remedies afforded by the workers' compensation system and may not sue their employer or coworkers for negligence. (Lab. Code §§ 3600, 3601, 3602(a).)

Nothing in the Complaint, however, alleges that Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant or that the injury occurred during work.  On a demurrer, the Court is limited to an examination of the pleadings.  A demurrer for lack of jurisdiction “lies only where it appears from the face of the complaint that the court is not competent to act.”  (1 Weil & Brown, supra, ¶ 7:64.)  The jurisdictional defect that Defendant identifies, however, even if true, does not appear on the face of the pleadings.  Accordingly, the Court must overrule Defendant’s demurrer on jurisdictional grounds. 

Second, Defendant specially demurs based on uncertainty.  In two places in the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the injury occurred on June 25, 2019.  In one other place, however, Plaintiff alleges that the injury occurred on June 25, 2020.  Defendant argues that this inconsistency in the pleading renders the Complaint uncertain as to time.

The Court overrules Defendant’s special demurrer.  The Complaint is not so incomprehensible that Defendant cannot reasonably respond to it.  (A.J. Fistes Corp., supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at 695.)  The inconsistency in the complaint can be fully and adequately addressed through discovery.  (Khoury, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at 616.)   

Conclusion

Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.  Defendant is granted 30 days to respond to the Complaint.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.