Minute OrderCal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 1, 2021SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Edward Jenkins vs Homefirst Services of Santa Clara Hearing Start Time; 9:00 AM County et al 21CV378983 Hearing Type: Hearing: Demurrer Date of Hearing: 01/20/2022 Comments: Line 1 Heard By: Rudy, Christopher G Location: Department 7 Courtroom Reporter: - No Court Reporter Courtroom Clerk: Felicia Samoy Court Interpreter: Court Investigator: Parties Present: Future Hearings: Exhibits: - Not reported 10:40am No appearance. No one called to contest the tentative ruling.Court to adopt the tentative ruling as follows: Case Name: Edward Jenkins vs Homefirst Services of Santa Clara County et al Case No.2 21CV378983 BACKGROUND Before the Court is the Demurrer to the Complaint of Edward Charles Jenkins (Plaintiff) by Defendants HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County (erroneously sued as HomeFirst), Andrea Urton, Beatriz Ramos (erroneously sued herein as Beatric Ramos), JANELY VELEZ and SANI MOHA (Collectively Defendants). The Demurrer is opposed by Plaintiff. On April 1, 2021 Plaintiff filed his Complaint naming HomeFirst Services of Santa Clara County( HomeFirst ); Andrea Urton, Chief Operating Officer; Beatriz Ramos, Director; Janelly Velez, employee of HomeFirst; and Yani Mohah, former employee of HomeFirst as Defendants. Plaintiff s complaint consists of 2 Causes of Action. Both Causes of Action are for Intentional Tort. The first Cause of Action is against HomeFirst. The second Cause of Action is against several HomeFirst employees. Plaintiff alleges he entered into a rapid re-housing program with HomeFirst which allowed him to qualify to rent the property 460 S. Buena Vista Printed: 1/24/2022 01/20/2022 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV378983 Page 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Ave. Apt. 6 from Steven Lawlor of Goker Properties ( Landlord ) and that HomeFirst failed to make payments on his behalf. Plaintiff claims he was damaged as a result. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard for Demurrer As relevant to the instant case, [t]he party against whom a complaint or crosscomplaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in [s]ection 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: . . . (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. ( 430.10, subds. (e).) A demurrer may be utilized by [t]he party against whom a complaint [] has been filed to object to the legal sufficiency ofthe pleading as a whole, or to any cause of action stated therein, on one or more of the grounds enumerated by statute. ( 430.10, 430.50, subd. (a).) A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against them. (Khoury v. Maly s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) The court in ruling on a demurrer treats it as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Piccinini v. Cal. Emergency Management Agency (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 685, 688, citing Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) A demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleading. It admits the truth of all material factual allegations in the complaint; the question of plaintiff s ability to prove these allegations, or the possible difficulty in making such proof does not concern the reviewing court. (Committee on Children s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213-214.) In ruling on a demurrer, courts may consider matters subject to judicial notice. (Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743. B. Analysis The Court agrees with moving parties that Plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a cause of action. Plaintiff alleges Intentional Torts against all Defendants. The specific torts are not identifiable. There is no Breach of Contract cause of action, yet it appears that Plaintiff s claim of a right to ongoing financial assistance from HomeFirst is alleged to arise out of some form of a contract. Plaintiff also names numerous employees of HomeFirst, but there are no facts alleged to determine the nature of the claim against them. It is unclear if they are sued in their individual capacity or as agents of HomeFirst. Even accepting all of Plaintiff s allegations at face value, the Complaint does not state facts to support any causes of action against any of the Defendants. The Demurrer is Printed: 1/24/2022 01/20/2022 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV378983 Page 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend. - 000 Plaintiff Edward Jenkins present in court at 10:45am. Printed: 1/24/2022 01/20/2022 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV378983 Page 3 of 3