Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV09106, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV09106 Hearing Date: January 15, 2025 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: January 15, 2025 TRIAL
DATE: NOT SET
CASE: Healthy California LLC v. AACHI Masala
Food (P) Ltd., et al.
CASE NO.: 24STCV09106 
DEMURRER
TO COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Miramar Cash & Carry and Vadilal
Industries USA, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Healthy
California LLC
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is a Proposition 65 enforcement action that was filed on April 11,
2024. Plaintiff contends that Defendants are knowingly engaged in the sale of food
products which contain lead.
Defendants Miramar Cash & Carry
and Vadilal Industries USA, Inc. demur to the Complaint and move to strike the
Complaint.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants’ Demurrer to the
Complaint is OVERRULED.
Defendants’ Motion to Strike is
DENIED.
DISCUSSION:
Demurrer to Complaint
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 Ryan Landis in support of the Demurrer only states that
Defendants’ counsel sent correspondence to Plaintiff’s counsel on May 6, 2024
describing Defendants’ challenge to the Complaint. (Declaration of Ryan S.
Landis ISO Dem. ¶ 3.) Although the Declaration states that the parties
stipulated to extend the time to respond to the Complaint to continue their
discussions, the Declaration is conspicuously silent as to whether further
discussions took place. (Id. ¶ 4.) This declaration does not demonstrate
an adequate effort to informally resolve this dispute as contemplated by the
Code of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, the Court will address the demurrer on
its merits.
Request for Judicial Notice
Defendants
request that the Court take judicial notice of three Proposition 65 Notices of
Violation given by Plaintiff on (1) April 9, 2022, (2) April 22, 2022, and (3)
January 5, 2023, respectively. Defendants bring this request under Evidence
Code section 452(c), which pertains to official acts of the legislative,
executive, and judicial departments of any state or of the United States.
(Evid. Code § 452(c).) The official acts of state agencies, including
rulemaking files, fall under this provision. (As You Sow v. Conbraco Indus. (2005)
135 Cal.App.4th 431, 493 fn. 3.) A request for judicial notice must give each
party sufficient notice to permit them to prepare to meet the request and
must furnish the Court with sufficient information to permit the Court to take
judicial notice of the matter. (Evid. Code § 453.) Here, however, although
Defendants assert that “Proposition 65 Notices are made available on the Office
of the Attorney General for California’s government website,” (RJN p.1:28-2:1),
Defendants have not furnished the Court with evidence of that assertion, such
as website addresses or printouts demonstrating that these materials are part
of a California agency’s file. Consequently, the Court does not have sufficient
information to take judicial notice of these materials. Defendants’ Requests
are 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,
Defendants failed to provide a separate statement of the grounds for the
demurrer independent of the Notice of Demurrer and the Memorandum of Points and
Authorities. However, the Notice of Demurrer substantially complies with this
requirement in that it states, in separate paragraphs, that (1) the Complaint
is time-barred by the statute of limitations and (2) Plaintiff has failed to
state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for relief under the
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. (Notice of Demurrer
pp.1:28-2:5.) Further, Plaintiff has substantively responded to the Demurrer
and does not object that the notice is deficient. The Court therefore finds
that the Demurrer gives adequate notice of the grounds upon which is brought.
Statute of Limitations
Defendants
demur to the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims under the Safe
Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (“Proposition 65”) are time-barred
by the statute of limitations. Enforcement claims under Proposition 65
generally have a one-year statute of limitations. (Health & Safety Code §
25249.7(d).) Defendants ground their assertion on three putative Proposition 65
notices given by Plaintiff on April 9, 2022, April 22, 2022, and January 5,
2023, all of which predate the April 11, 2024 Complaint in this action by more
than one year. As the Court cannot take judicial notice of these documents,
Defendants’ argument falls outside the four corners of the Complaint and is
therefore insufficient to support a demurrer.
Failure to Allege Basis for Relief
Defendants
also demur to the Complaint on the grounds that the Complaint fails to identify
the legal grounds for the injunctive relief sought. Defendants’ argument is
premised entirely on paragraphs 23 and 39 of the Complaint, which purport to
seek injunctive relief and civil penalties under subdivisions (a) and (b) of
“Health and Safety Code, section 25249.” (Complaint ¶¶ 23, 39.) As Defendants
state, no such statute exists. Plaintiff, in response, agrees that the
citations are erroneous, and affirmatively represents that paragraphs 23 and 39
contain typographical errors, with the proper citation being to section 25249.7
of the Health and Safety Code. Indeed, paragraph 5 of the Complaint plainly
states that “Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief compelling Defendants to
sufficiently warn consumers in California before exposing them to lead in the
Subject Products (H&S Code §25249.7(a)). Plaintiff also seeks civil
penalties against Defendants for violations of Proposition 65 along with
attorney’s fees and costs (H&S Code §25249.7(b)).” (Complaint ¶ 5.) Subdivisions
(a) and (b) of section 25249.7 are the provisions which authorize injunctive
relief and civil penalties as relief for violations of Proposition 65. (Health
& Safety Code § 25249.7(a)-(b).) Paragraph 5 is also incorporated into both
causes of action. (Complaint ¶¶ 15, 28.) The Court therefore finds that the
Complaint accurately sets forth the statutory basis for the relief sought
against these Defendants.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.
Motion to Strike Complaint
Defendants
move in the alternative to strike the Complaint on the same grounds as the
Demurrer. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to
Strike is DENIED.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, Defendants’
Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.
Defendants’ Motion to Strike is
DENIED.
Moving
Parties to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15,
2025 ___________________________________
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.