Judge Thomas D. Long, Case 22STCV26794 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

On August 18, 2022, Candelaria Flores De Guardado and Mario Enrique Guardado field this action against Defendants LA Solar Group Inc. (“LA Solar”)and Denise Villicana.

LA Solar argues that the Complaint is “so ambiguous and unintelligible that Defendant cannot determine against whom Plaintiffs’ allegations are directed.” (Demurrer at p. 6.)

A demurrer for sufficiency 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, accepting the alleged facts as true. (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.) A special demurrer for uncertainty under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f) is disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that defendant or plaintiff cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

The complaint uses a Judicial Council form for an action based in contract. “The Judicial Council pleading forms have simplified the art of pleading, and have made the task of drafting much easier. Nevertheless, in some cases more is required than merely placing an ‘X’ in a box. [Citation.]” (People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1484.)

Item 8 on page 2 of the form complaint states, “The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or more causes of action attached).” Plaintiffs checked the boxes for Breach of Contract and Other: Fraud. Plaintiffs also checked the box for Item 9, “Other allegations,” noting “see attached as Exhibit ‘1.’”

The Form attachments set forth causes of action for General Negligence, Intentional Tort, and Fraud (Intentional or Negligent Misrepresentation, Concealment, and Promise Without Intent to Perform). Each of these attachments states, “See attached allegations.”

After the Form attachments is a separate attachment titled “Allegations” and “Attachments to Complaint.” Page 1 of this attachment states that Plaintiffs allege against both defendants “1) Declaratory Relief; 2) Negligent 3) Misrepresentation; 4) Intentional Misrepresentation; 5) Fraud; and 6) Violations of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et. seq.” Beginning on page 10 of this attachment, Plaintiffs allege causes of action for (1) declaratory relief, (2) quiet title, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) intentional misrepresentation, (5) fraud, (6) slander of title, (7) cancellation of instruments, and (8) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint therefore alleges three different and inconsistent sets of causes of action. It is unclear which is the true first cause of action, second cause of action, etc. Plaintiffs also bring every cause of action against both defendants, rendering it unclear as to which defendant did which act. The Complaint is so uncertain that LA Solar cannot reasonably respond to it.

The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subds. (a)-(b).)

LA Solar moves to strike allegations relating to punitive damages. A plaintiff can recover punitive damages in tort cases where “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).) “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. [Citation.] Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. [Citation.]” (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, fn. omitted.) A corporate employer can be liable for punitive damages only when an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).)

Plaintiffs’ allegations that the conduct “constitutes fraud, oppression and malice” and was “egregious and oppressive and characterized by malice or wantonness” are conclusory and insufficient.

LA Solar moves to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for attorney fees because they are pro se litigants who are not entitled to attorney fees. As Plaintiffs note in their opposition, they may retain counsel in the future. Although self-represented litigants ultimately are not entitled to attorney fees, the prayer for attorney fees is permissible at this stage.

The motion to strike is GRANTED IN PART as to punitive damages, with 30 days’ leave to amend.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court