Demurrer CLMCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.August 26, 2020123 Judge SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, TENTATIVE RULINGS EVENT DATE: EVENT TIME: VENTURA DIVISION November 02, 2020 11/06/2020 08:20:00 AM DEPT.: 40 COUNTY OF VENTURA JUDICIAL OFFICER: Mark Borrell CASE NUM: CASE CATEGORY: EVENT TYPE: CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Other 56-2020-00544758-CU-PO-VTA WILBER VS. MANZER Demurrer (CLM) - to Complaint CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 10/08/2020 stolo The following is a statement of the court's tentative ruling. The court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling after considering the parties' oral arguments. The tentative ruling will have no legal effect unless adopted by the court. No notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative decision, you may send a telefax to Judge Borrell's secretary, Denise Arreola, at 805-477-5894, stating that you submit on the tentative. A copy of the telefax must be sent to all opposing parties contemporaneous with transmission to the court. Please include the hearing date, the case name and case number on your telefax. Do not call in lieu of sending a telefax, nor should you call to see if your telefax has been received. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. Defendants demur to the complaint of plaintiff, Ron Wilber. In response, plaintiff has filed an objection to the demurrer. The court treats the objection as an opposition. A demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the complaint. (Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) "A demurrer tests the pleading alone; a court cannot sustain a demurrer on the basis of extrinsic matter not appearing on the face of the pleading except for matters subject to judicial notice." (Jamulians Against the Casino v. Iwasaki (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 632.) Plaintiff's objection (opposition) to the demurrer is not addressed to the sufficiency of the allegations pleaded. Rather, plaintiff takes issue with the sufficiency of the meet and confer process. Whatever the merits of plaintiff's concerns, they are not a ground for overruling the demurrer. (See Dumas v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348.) The demurrer is based on uncertainty of the allegations of the complaint. Demurrers for uncertainty are strictly construed because ambiguities can reasonably be clarified under modern rules of discovery. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) "A special demurrer should not be sustained when the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues which he is to meet." (Bacon v. Wahrhaftig (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 599, 605.) Thus, a demurrer for uncertain should only be sustained if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond. (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695; accord Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Ins. Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848, fn. 3, and Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) Here, the sparse facts alleged are insufficient to place defendants on notice of what conduct or omissions form the basis for the cause of action or what legal theory of liability is asserted. Therefore, the demurrer is sustained with leave to file an amended complaint by November 20, 2020. TENTATIVE RULINGS Page: 1 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: WILBER VS. MANZER 56-2020-00544758-CU-PO-VTA Plaintiff has filed what he has styled a motion for leave to file an amendment to the original complaint, among other things. That motion was not properly noticed. However, the court views it as moot, inasmuch as the court has granted to leave to amend in connection with defendant's demurrer. Therefore, the court orders plaintiff's motion off calendar. TENTATIVE RULINGS Page: 2