Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV22174, Date: 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22174    Hearing Date: January 25, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff Tenant Mike Harsini (“Plaintiff”) in pro per, filed this action against Defendants South Bay Property Management Inc. (“South Bay”) and “Agents: Wanda Rafael” (“Rafael”). The Complaint alleges one cause of action for “OSC: Failure to Perform.”

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “[d]uring the past five years, Wanda Rafael the Agent at South Bay Property Management Inc. has been making many false promises that she knows the person who is creating these Toxic fumes entering my office 24/7, and she said, she is in the process of evicting that tenant. But unfortunately, every month she has been precipitating in violating the lease agreement clause of quiet enjoyment by accepting and cashing this troublesome tenant’s rent checks who is causing all the health hazards and toxic fumes entering my office 24/7 during the past five years.” The caption page of the Complaint indicates that Plaintiff seeks $50,000 in compensatory and punitive damages for alleged health issues caused by the toxic fumes. 

South Bay and Rafael (jointly, “Defendants”) now demur to the Complaint in its entirety. Defendants also move to strike portions of the Complaint. Plaintiff opposes.

Demurrer

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)  

First, Defendants assert that the Complaint fails for lack of jurisdiction. They note that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (a)(1), “[t]he party against whom a complaint…has been filed may object, by demurrer…to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.” However, Defendants do not explain why they contend the Court has no jurisdiction over the instant action.

Next, Defendants assert that the Complaint fails for uncertainty. A pleading is uncertain if it is ambiguous or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) A demurrer for uncertainty may lie if the failure to label the parties and claims renders the complaint so confusing defendant cannot tell what he or she is supposed to respond to.¿ (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.) Defendants assert that the Complaint does not have a recognizable cause of action against them, leaving Defendants unable to prepare for a proper defense. Indeed, the Complaint only alleges one cause of action for “OSC: Failure to Perform,” which does not appear to be a recognizable cause of action. The Court agrees with Defendants that the Complaint is uncertain, as the first cause of action is ambiguous and unintelligible.

            Plaintiff filed multiple oppositions to the demurrer but does not address Defendants’ point that the cause of action for “OSC: Failure to Perform” is uncertain. In addition, as Defendants note, Plaintiff’s oppositions refer to matters and alleges facts not set forth in this Complaint. The Court notes that “[t]he purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a pleading, not to test the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (McHugh v. Howard (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 169, 173-174.)[1]

            Based on the foregoing, the Court sustains Defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint in its entirety, with leave to amend.

Motion to Strike

A court may strike any “irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or all or any part of a pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)  

Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations. Because Defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint is sustained, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to strike as moot. 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint in its entirety is sustained, with leave to amend. Defendants’ motion to strike is denied as moot.

The Court orders Plaintiff to file and serve an amended complaint, if any, within 20 days of the date of this order. If no amended complaint is filed within 20 days, the Court orders

Defendants to file and serve a proposed judgment of dismissal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this order. 

DATED:  January 25, 2023                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court