Judge: William Y. Wood, Case: 37-2023-00023265-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-29 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:William Y Wood

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00023265-CU-BC-NC CUNNINGHAM VS SYMONDS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 02/29/2024

Defendants Amara Symonds and Robert Symonds' demurrer to the first amended complaint (ROA # 40) is overruled. Defendants' motion to strike (ROA # 43) is granted. Defendants shall file an answer by May 20, 2024.

The special demurrer is overruled on the following grounds: (a) where a demurrer is made for uncertainty, it must specify exactly how or why the pleading is uncertain, and where such uncertainty appears (by reference to page and line numbers of the complaint) See Fenton v. Groveland Community Services Dist. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 797, 809 and (b) the causes of action in the first amended complaint (ROA # 30) do not appear to be uncertain, ambiguous or vague.

At this stage of the case, the Court is required to liberally construe the allegations of the amended complaint, with a view to substantial justice between the parties. CCP § 452. The Court should sustain a demurrer only if the facts alleged in the amended complaint, liberally construed, are insufficient to constitute any cognizable cause of action. After careful review of the pleadings, arguments and authorities presented by the parties, the Court believes that Plaintiff has set forth sufficient facts constituting the causes of action asserted in the first amended complaint.

As the case progresses, the Defendants may continue to assert the arguments and defenses presented by this demurrer by way of motions and at trial.

Turning to the motion strike, Plaintiff concedes that she has not sufficiently set forth allegations supporting a punitive damages claim. Oppo. (ROA # 52), 8:10-18. Thus, the Court will grant Defendants' motion to strike the allegation supporting such a claim (FAC (ROA # 30), ¶ 34). Plaintiff may seek leave to amend in the future if facts are discovered to support a punitive damages claim.

This minute order constitutes the Court's order. No party is required to submit a proposed order after hearing.

This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing (in person or remote) at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, May 10, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court as of May 10, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the Court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3110618