Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV20032, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV20032    Hearing Date: March 26, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     March 26, 2025                      TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Kentrice Watkins v. Danco, Inc.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV20032           

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Danco, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of March 21, 2025

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a fraud action filed by a pro se litigant on August 8, 2024.

Defendant demurs to the Complaint in its entirety.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED.

Plaintiff shall have 30 days leave to amend the Complaint.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant demurs to the Complaint in its entirety.

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 Bradley J. Yourist included with the moving papers states that counsel for Defendant attempted to contact Plaintiff by telephone and email on September 21, 2024 and November 4, 2024, without success. (Declaration of Bradley J. Yourist ISO Dem. ¶¶ 2-3.) Defendant has satisfied its statutory meet-and-confer obligations.

Analysis

            Defendant demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set forth any allegations constituting fraud.

“The elements of fraud that will lead to a tort action are: (a) misrepresentation; (b) knowledge of falsity; (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974.) Every element of the cause of action for fraud must be alleged in the proper manner and the facts constituting the fraud must be alleged with sufficient specificity to allow defendant[s] to understand fully the nature of the charge made. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.) “This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Ibid.) “[G]eneral and conclusory allegations do not suffice.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)

            Defendant contends that the Complaint does not allege the requisite facts to support a fraud claim. The Court concurs. The Complaint does not identify any purported false representation on which Plaintiff relied to her detriment, let alone to the heightened degree of specificity required to maintain a fraud cause of action.

            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 demonstrated how the Complaint’s deficiencies might be cured. That said, given case law’s strong preference for liberality in permitting amendment, the Court will exercise its discretion to permit Plaintiff a fair opportunity to amend the Complaint.  

CONCLUSION:

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

Plaintiff shall have 30 days leave to amend the Complaint.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 26, 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.