Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV00859, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV00859 Hearing Date: December 9, 2024 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: December 9, 2024 TRIAL
DATE: NOT SET
CASE: Wilton Holdings & Management LLC v.
8210 Sunset, LLC et al.
CASE NO.: 24STCV00859 
DEMURRER
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION; MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Wilton Holdings & Management LLC
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff-in-Intervention
Herbalcure Corporation
CASE
HISTORY:
·
01/12/24: Complaint filed.
·
02/28/24: Complaint in Intervention filed.
·
05/03/24: First Amended Complaint in
Intervention filed.
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is a breach of contract and wrongful eviction action. Plaintiff
alleges that it subleased a commercial property from Defendants to operate a
cannabis business. The property allegedly had serious structural and
habitability defects which Defendants neither disclosed nor remedied.
Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants subsequently locked Plaintiffs out of
the property without formally terminating the lease agreement.
Plaintiff demurs to First Amended
Complaint in Intervention and moves to strike portions of the First Amended
Complaint in Intervention.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s
Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint in Intervention is OVERRULED.
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint in Intervention is
DENIED.
DISCUSSION:
Demurrer to First Amended Complaint in Intervention
Plaintiff
demurs to the First Amended Complaint in Intervention.
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 Brandon Leopoldus in support of the demurrer states that counsel
for the parties met and conferred via online conference on June 4, 2024. (Declaration
of Brandon Leopoldus Iso Dem. ¶ 9.) Although the declaration does not state the
outcome of this discussion, it is apparent that the parties were not successful
in resolving this dispute. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has
satisfied its statutory meet-and-confer obligations.
//
//
Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff
requests that the Court take judicial notice of a laundry list of cases,
records, and statutes. None of these materials are relevant to the Court’s
ruling, and Plaintiff’s request is therefore DENIED.
Deficient Statement of Grounds for Demurrer
A demurrer
“shall distinctly specify the grounds upon which any of the objections to the
complaint . . . are taken. Unless it does so, it may be disregarded.” (Code
Civ. Proc. § 430.60.) Pursuant to this statute, the Rules of Court require that
each grounds for a demurrer be stated in a separate paragraph. (Cal. Rules of
Court Rule 3.1320(a).)
Here, Plaintiff
did not separately include a Demurrer independent of the Notice of Motion and
their Memorandum of Points and Authorities, as required by the Code of Civil
Procedure and the Rules of Court. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff’s
Notice of Motion should be construed as the Demurrer, the Notice challenges “the
first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and ninth causes of action in the
FACI on the grounds that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute
causes of action against Wilton Holdings, there is a misjoinder of parties, and
the pleading is uncertain/vague/unintelligible.” (Notice of Motion p.2:12-16.)
“[W]here such separate grounds of demurrer are conjoined, the complaint must be
defective on each, or the demurrer must be overruled.” (Wilhoit v.
Cunningham (1891) 87 Cal. 453, 459; see also Kraner v. Halsey (1889)
82 Cal.209, 212; Butler v. Wyman (1933) 128 Cal.App.736, 740.) Thus, if the
demurrer for uncertainty is deficient as to any one cause of action, the entire
Demurrer must be overruled.
Uncertainty
Plaintiff
contends that each of the challenged causes of action are uncertain.
Demurrers¿for uncertainty are disfavored,
because discovery can be used for clarification, and they apply only where
defendants cannot reasonably determine what issues or claims are stated.¿(Chen
v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822; Khoury v. Maly's of Cal.,
Inc.¿(1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) If the complaint is sufficiently
comprehensible that Defendant can reasonably respond, the complaint is not
uncertain. (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Ins. Agency, Inc. (2017) 14
Cal.App.5th 841, 848 n.3.)
Plaintiff does not address the
purported uncertainty of the pleadings beyond the bare assertion that they are
so, instead arguing the merits of the various causes of action. The objection
of uncertainty does not go to the failure to allege sufficient facts.” (Brea
v. McGlashan (1934) 3 Cal.App.2d 454, 459.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s own
demurrer plainly demonstrates that the First Amended Complaint in Intervention is
sufficiently comprehensible that Plaintiff could—and did—respond. The First
Amended Complaint in Intervention is not uncertain.
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.
Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint
in Intervention
Plaintiff
moves to strike portions of the First Amended Complaint in Intervention.
However, Plaintiff’s motion does not contain a separate notice of motion
specifying which portions of the pleading should be stricken. Plaintiff’s
motion is therefore facially improper and must be DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc. §
435(b).)
Plaintiff
also requests sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. Such
sanctions must be sought by a separately noticed motion after providing
the party against whom sanctions are sought a 21-day safe harbor period to correct
the putative sanctionable act. (Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7(c)(1).) Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions is DENIED.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint in Intervention is OVERRULED.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended
Complaint in Intervention is DENIED.
Moving
Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 9,
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.