Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV02236, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV02236    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: W

LISA ANN DUPER v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC, et al.

demurrer to the complaint

Date of Hearing:        April 24, 2023                                     Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              W                                                        Case No.:        22VECV02236

Moving Party:            Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Nazeli Oglukyan, LCSW, Stephanie Kelley, MSN, RN, and Leticia Garcia, MSN, MHA, RN

Responding Party:     No opposition

Meet and Confer:      Yes. (Rhoten Decl. ¶¶2-4.)  

BACKGROUND

On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff Lisa Ann Duper filed a complaint against Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Nazeli Oglukyan, LCSW, Stephanie Kelley, MSN, RN, and Leticia Garcia, MSN, MHA, RN, The Department of Children Family Social Services (“DCFS”), Veronica Navarro, SCSW, and Charles Ohaeri, CSW. The action arises out of Plaintiff giving birth at Kaiser and Kaiser’s alleged anonymous phone call to DCFS.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Nazeli Oglukyan, LCSW, Stephanie Kelley, MSN, RN, and Leticia Garcia, MSN, MHA, RN’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

DISCUSSION

Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Nazeli Oglukyan, LCSW, Stephanie Kelley, MSN, RN, and Leticia Garcia, MSN, MHA, RN demur to Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, on the grounds that the Complaint and said causes of action are uncertain, ambiguous, unintelligible, and it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these Defendants.

A demurrer to a pleading lies where the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. (CCP §430.10(f).) “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)  As a result, a special demurrer for uncertainty is not intended to reach failure to incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading but is directed only at uncertainty existing in the allegations already made. (People v. Taliaferro (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 822, 825.)  Where complaint is sufficient to state a cause of action and to apprise defendant of issues he is to meet, it is not properly subject to a special demurrer for uncertainty. (See ibid.; see also Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643 [“[a] special demurrer [for uncertainty] should be overruled where the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues which he is to meet”].)

Defendants argue Plaintiff’s 376-page complaint is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to what causes of action the complaint actually alleges, and against whom. For example, Plaintiff’s caption page states “Cause of Actions: Abuse of Process”, then lists various causes of action in no clear numerical order and no explanatory introduction follows thereafter. Moreover, as the complaint goes on, there is never a concise statement of the claims and the specific facts upon which the cause of action is alleged. Defendants further contend the same goes for damages as Plaintiff failed to list any prayers for relief against any of Defendants. Defendants also point out the inconsistency between Plaintiff’s complaint and the Civil Case Cover Sheet.

The court agrees. Plaintiff's complaint is so uncertain that Defendants cannot reasonably respond thereto. As alleged, it is unclear what causes of action are being alleged and against what Defendant. A complaint must contain “a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (CCP § 425.10(a)(1).) For example, if Plaintiff is alleging breach of contract, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating an agreement existed between Plaintiff and Defendants, Plaintiff performed her part of the contract (or was excused from performing), Defendants breached the contract, and as a result of that breach, Plaintiff has been damaged. (See Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.) Plaintiff must follow all statutory and procedural requirements when filing a complaint including Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court. For example, California Rules of Court, Rule 2.112 provides:

Each separately stated cause of action, count, or defense must specifically state:

(1)  Its number (e.g., "first cause of action");

(2)  Its nature (e.g., "for fraud");

(3)  The party asserting it if more than one party is represented on the pleading (e.g., "by plaintiff Jones"); and

(4)  The party or parties to whom it is directed (e.g., "against defendant Smith").

Accordingly, Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.