Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV02576, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV02576    Hearing Date: April 4, 2023    Dept: W

ANGEL KASHFIAN v. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY, et al.

Demurrer to complaint

Date of Hearing:        April 4, 2023                                      Trial Date:       None Set.

Department:              W                                                        Case No.:        22VECV02576

Moving Party:            Defendants Dikran Harutiunian and Arshaluys Harutiunian

Responding Party:     Plaintiff Angel Kashfian

Meet and Confer:      Yes.  (Weitz Decl.)

BACKGROUND

On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff Angel Kashfian filed a complaint against Defendants Department of Building and Safety, City of Los Angeles, Dikran Harutiunian, and Arshaluys Harutiunian. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Dikran Harutiunian and Arshaluys Harutiunian have been building a new home next to hers. However, there has been fabricated and false inspections/permits issued by Defendants Department of Building and Safety and City of Los Angeles according to Plaintiff.

On March 9, 2023, Defendants Dikran Harutiunian and Arshaluys Harutiunian (“Harutiunian Family”) filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff asserting causes of action for: (1) Civil Stalking [Civ. C. § 1708.7]; (2) Civil Harassment [CCP § 527.6]; (3) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (4) Malicious Prosecution; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (6) Trespass to Land.

On March 15, 2023, this action was related to Kashfian v. Lawyers Title Company et al. (23VECV00608).

Defendants Dikran Harutiunian and Arshaluys Harutiunian demur to the complaint.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendants Dikran Harutiunian and Arshaluys Harutiunian’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

DISCUSSION

Defendants Dikran Harutiunian and Arshaluys Harutiunian demur to the complaint on the grounds the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain.

Claims against Defendants

Defendants first argue none of the causes of action are against the Harutiunian Family. Upon review of the complaint, it is difficult to ascertain what, if any, causes of action are alleged against the Harutiunian Family. Plaintiff alleges City officials have caused negligence by giving away fabricated inspections and closing permits.

Damages

Defendants further demur to the complaint on the grounds the complaint pleads no facts about how the Harutiunian Family are liable for damages to the Plaintiff or her property, pleads no facts alleging that the Harutiunian Family damaged the Plaintiff, and pleads no facts alleging that the Plaintiff or her Property were even damaged.

Because it is unclear what allegations, if any, have been alleged against the Harutiunian Family, the court finds Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged damages against the moving defendants.

Conclusions of Law

Defendants argue the complaint states several times that there are “untruth” [sic], “fabricated,” or “false” inspections, reports, etc. yet, the complaint states no facts saying why these documents are untrue, fabricated, or false.

Although most of the complaint is unintelligible, the court finds the complaint does not only state conclusions of law. In Burks v. Poppy Construction Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 463, 473–474, the court said: “The distinction between conclusions of law and¿ultimate¿facts¿is not at all clear and involves at most a matter of degree. [Citations.] For example, the courts have permitted allegations which obviously included conclusions of law and have termed them ‘ultimate¿facts' or ‘conclusions of fact.’ (See Peninsula, etc. Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 34 Cal.2d 626, 629, 213 P.2d 489 [one is the ‘owner’ of property]; Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 26 Cal.2d 149, 154, 157 P.2d 1 [act was ‘negligently’ done]; May v. Farrell, 94 Cal.App. 703, 707, 271 P. 789 [employee was ‘acting within the scope of his employment’].)”

Uncertainty

Defendants demur to the complaint for uncertainty.  A demurrer based on uncertainty only applies where the complaint is so bad that a defendant 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.)  Though California courts take a liberal view toward in artfully drawn pleadings, it remains essential a complaint set forth the actionable facts with sufficient precision to inform the defendant of what the plaintiff is complaining about and what remedies are being sought.  (Signal Hill Aviation Co. v. Stroppe (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 627, 636.) 

The court finds the demurrer is uncertain. As noted above, it is unclear what allegations are against the Harutiunian Family and how the Harutiunian Family has damaged Plaintiff. Moreover, the caption of the page lists six causes of action, yet the body of the complaint only alleges three. The causes of action also appear to be improperly labeled.

Standing

Defendants also demur to the complaint on the grounds Plaintiff lacks standing. Defendants contend because Plaintiff has failed to allege injury or statutory standing, she lacks standing.

As read, it is unclear what Plaintiff’s injuries are. Plaintiff alleges injury for mature trees being cut from the root. However, it is unclear whether these are her trees on her property. Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations appear to be based on the other named defendants “allowing” the Harutiunian Family to cut her trees.  Plaintiff must further clarify her standing to bring this claim against these defendants.