Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV21450, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV21450    Hearing Date: April 11, 2025    Dept: 45

DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Date of Hearing: April 11, 2025 Trial Date: None set.

Department: 45 Case No.: 24STCV21450

Moving Party: Martin Lee Law Firm

Responding Party: Plaintiff Shera Moore

BACKGROUND

On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff Shera Moore filed a complaint against the Martin Lee Law Firm, alleging that a lawsuit relating to her son was a “big scam,” and seeking $2 million in damages. On December 13, 2024, defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint. No opposition has been filed.

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Defendant’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED. The court will grant leave to amend provided plaintiff explains at the hearing the basis for her claim and what facts she could allege if leave to amend is granted.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Martin Lee Law Firm demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds the complaint is uncertain as it does not allege any causes of action and the facts are extremely vague.

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. 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. (CCP §§ 430.30, 430.70.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A “demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law.” (S.

Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 (internal citations omitted).)

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s complaint is fatally uncertain as it does not clearly state any facts or relate the few facts alleged to any particular claim or cause of action against the defendant. The court agrees. “A complaint must contain a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action in ordinary and concise language. (§ 425.10, subd. (a)(1).) This requirement obligates the plaintiff to allege ultimate facts that, taken as a whole, apprise the defendant of the factual basis of the claim. [Citation.] The requirement that the complaint allege ultimate facts forming the basis for the plaintiff’s cause of action is central to the relation-back doctrine and the determination of whether an amended complaint should be deemed filed as of the date of the original pleading. [Citation.]” (Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 590, 597-598.)

Upon review of the complaint, Plaintiff does not allege the essential elements of any claim. It is impossible to know the basis of her claim against the law firm, what she alleges the firm did wrong, the firm’s involvement in her son’s prior case, or on what basis she is seeking damages of $2 million. The mere statement that a prior court case involving her son was “a scam,” and “staged” is insufficient to meet even the most liberal pleading standard. If plaintiff can articulate how she can amend her complaint to state a claim, the court will grant 30 days leave to amend.