Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV18368, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV18368    Hearing Date: April 1, 2025    Dept: 45

patrick williams (jr.) v. palmdale sheriff’s station

DEMURRER

Date of Hearing:          April 1, 2025                            Trial Date:       None

Department:               45                                            Case No.:         24STCV18368

Moving Party:             Defendant Palmdale Sheriff’s Station

Responding Party:       None as of March 26, 2025

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges he was stopped by the Palmdale Sheriff’s Department without probable cause on March 13, 2024.  Plaintiff alleges the sheriff who stopped him searched his vehicle without probable cause and eventually had his car towed. Plaintiff was incarcerated as a result of the traffic stop.  Plaintiff alleges he eventually obtained a letter of exoneration from the District Attorney’s Office. 

On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Palmdale Sheriff’s Station.  The complaint does not allege any identifiable causes of action.  Plaintiff filed the complaint in pro per.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. 

LEGAL STANDARD

“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].)  For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

Further, the court may, upon motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).)  The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)  The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”]; Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 [“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”]; Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”].)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

ANALYSIS

Defendant demurs to the complaint on grounds that (1) Plaintiff fails to allege compliance with the California Tort Claims Act pursuant to Government Code §§911.2 and 945.4 and 945.6; (2) the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action; and (3) the complaint is uncertain.

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to identify any specific causes of action.  The complaint consists of four-pages of narrative regarding what transpired.  Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with California Rules of Court Rule 2.112, which sets forth the formatting requirements for causes of action.  The failure to clearly identify and caption causes of action.  Defendant cannot reasonably respond to the complaint for this reason.  (Khoury v. O’Maly (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)  Demurrer based on uncertainty is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. 

Plaintiff must also allege compliance with the Tort Claims Act, if he intends to allege claims subject the Act.  “The procedural requirements for claim presentation are prerequisites to litigation against a local public entity or employee thereof based not only on tort liability, but on any claim for ‘money or damages.’ (§ 905.) A cause of action that is subject to the statutory claim procedure must allege either that the plaintiff complied with the claims presentation requirement, or that a recognized exception or excuse for noncompliance exists.”  (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363, 374.)

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.