Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV00471, Date: 2024-09-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00471    Hearing Date: September 4, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     September 4, 2024                 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Admiral Lee Walker Jr. v. American Cheeseburger, LLC

CASE NO.:                 24STCV00471           

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant American Cheeseburger, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 08/28/24

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an employment discrimination action filed by a self-represented litigant on January 8, 2024.

            Defendant demurs to the Complaint and moves to strike the Complaint.  

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

            Defendant’s Motion to Strike is MOOT.

            Plaintiff shall have 30 days leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

DISCUSSION:

Demurrer to Complaint

            Defendant demurs to the Complaint in its entirety for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Legal Standard

A 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.) 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.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “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 p. 747.) The ultimate facts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403; see also Shields v. County of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 133 [stating, “[o]n demurrer, pleadings are read liberally and allegations contained therein are assumed to be true”].) “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.” (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who has filed the pleading subject to the demurrer and file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a).) However, an insufficient meet and confer process is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(4).)

            The Declaration of Stephen McAndrew in support of the Demurrer states that counsel for Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff on January 31, 2024 outlining the claimed deficiencies in the Complaint. (Declaration of Stephen McAndrew ISO Dem. ¶ 3; Exh. B.) Plaintiff responded by email that same day stating that he would not be withdrawing the Complaint. (Id. ¶ 4; Exh. B.) Defendant’s counsel also states that Plaintiff informed Attorney McAndrew by telephone that he would not be amending the Complaint. (Id.) Defendant has therefore demonstrated compliance with its statutory meet and confer obligations.

Analysis

            Defendant demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendant principally argues that the Complaint is deficient because it does not contain a statement of the facts giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10(a)(1), a complaint must contain “[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.10(a)(1).) Although Plaintiff’s Complaint contains a header for “factual allegations,” that section has been left blank. (Complaint p.2.) Moreover, while Plaintiff has included text conversations and email chains as supporting documentation, these materials are not a substitute for a statement of the facts in ordinary and concise language. The Court concurs with Defendant that the Complaint is deficient.

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED.

Leave to Amend

When a demurrer is sustained, the Court determines whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318).  When a plaintiff “has pleaded the general set of facts upon which his cause of action is based,” the court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint, since plaintiff should not “be deprived of his right to maintain his action on the ground that his pleadings were defective for lack of particulars.” (Reed v. Norman (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 892, 900.) Accordingly, California law imposes the burden on the plaintiffs to demonstrate the manner in which they can amend their pleadings to state their claims against a defendant.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) “Denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the complaint shows on its face it is incapable of amendment.  [Citation.]  Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given." (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.)

            As Plaintiff has not responded to the Demurrer, Plaintiff has not shown how the defects in the Complaint might be cured by amendment. That said, because the deficiencies arise from an absence of information required by statute, it is facially apparent that further detail, in the form of a statement of facts in ordinary and concise language, would cure that defect. The Court therefore finds good cause to permit amendment of the Complaint.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

            Plaintiff shall have 30 days leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

Motion to Strike Complaint

            Defendant also moves to strike the Complaint as improper. Because the Court has sustained the Demurrer to the Complaint, the Motion to Strike is MOOT.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

            Defendant’s Motion to Strike is MOOT.

            Plaintiff shall have 30 days leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  September 4, 2024                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.