Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV27904, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27904    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff Dylan Scott Perry (“Plaintiff”) in pro per, filed this action against Defendant Blue Shield of California.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he signed up for healthcare coverage on “December 15^th.” Plaintiff alleges that without warning or notice, Blue Shield of California cancelled his health insurance policy leaving Plaintiff uninsured for the month of January. On January 21, 2022, Plaintiff went to the doctor to receive treatment for a rash, but his health insurance was rejected. Plaintiff’s insurance was also rejected at a pharmacy. (See Complaint.)

Plaintiff alleges he called Blue Shield of California to ask why his insurance was being rejected, but they would not give Plaintiff a reason as to why. Blue Shield of California indicated to Plaintiff “there is nothing that we can do. You must re-enroll for healthcare coverage beginning February 1^st.” Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint, “I do not want money. I only want to enforce the law that states: ‘an insurance company must give a policyholder written notice of cancellation at least 30 days before cancelling the policy.” (See Complaint.)

Defendant California Physicians’ Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California (“Defendant”) now demurs to the Complaint. Plaintiff filed a document on November 28, 2022 titled “I am overturning the proposed demurrer.”

Discussion

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.)  

            Defendant first asserts that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Complaint due to Plaintiff’s failure to meet the jurisdictional minimum. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, “[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.”

            Defendant notes that Plaintiff filed the instant action as an unlimited civil case. (See Plaintiff’s August 26, 2022 Civil Case Cover Sheet.) “¿A civil action or proceeding other than a limited civil case may be referred to as an unlimited civil case.¿” (¿Code Civ. Proc., § 88¿.) A “limited civil case” includes, inter alia, a “¿case at law in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy amounts to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less…¿” (¿Code Civ. Proc., § 86, subd. (a)(1)¿.)

            As set forth above, Plaintiff alleges, “I do not want money. I only want to enforce the law that states: ‘an insurance company must give a policyholder written notice of cancellation at least 30 days before cancelling the policy.” (See Complaint.) Defendant asserts that because the damages at issue in this case are zero, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (a).

            However, Plaintiff appears to seek declaratory relief in the Complaint, as set forth above. The Court notes that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 580, subdivision (b), “[n]otwithstanding subdivision (a), the following types of relief may not be granted in a limited civil case:…(4) Declaratory relief, except as authorized by Section 86.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (b)(4).) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 86, subdivision (a)(7), “[t]he following civil cases and proceedings are limited civil cases:…(7) An action for declaratory relief when brought pursuant to either of the following: (A) By way of cross-complaint as to a right of indemnity with respect to the relief demanded in the complaint or a cross-complaint in an action or proceeding that is otherwise a limited civil case. (B) To conduct a trial after a nonbinding fee arbitration between an attorney and client, pursuant to Article 13 (commencing with Section 6200) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, where the amount in controversy is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less.” These circumstances are not at issue here. As set forth above, “¿[a] civil action or proceeding other than a limited civil case may be referred to as an unlimited civil case.¿” (¿Code Civ. Proc., § 88, emphasis added¿.)  

            Next, Defendant notes that the Complaint fails to assert any cause of action or legal theory under which Plaintiff may recover for his alleged harm. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e), “[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:…(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” The Court agrees with Defendant that the Complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. In the document titled “I am overturning the proposed demurrer,” Plaintiff asserts, inter alia, that he was “uninsured for 1-month as a result of the negligence of Blue shield of California…” However, the Complaint does not allege any cause of action for negligence.

            Defendant also asserts that the Complaint is fatally uncertain. Defendant asserts that because the Complaint does not specify what legal theories or grounds for relief are being asserted, Defendant cannot reasonably be expected to answer the Complaint’s allegations. Defendant also asserts that since the Complaint does not identify specific theories of relief, Defendant cannot reasonably be expected to formulate affirmative defenses to causes of action that do not exist. The Court agrees that the Complaint is uncertain. A pleading is uncertain if it is ambiguous or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(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.)  

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint, with leave to amend.

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

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this order. 

DATED:  March 15, 2023                              ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court