DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME LUCATERO VS CRP/BRANDYWINE DEMURRER ON 2ND AMENDED CVRI2502029 HAWTHORNE COMPLAINT APARTMENTS OWNER LLC Tentative Ruling:
The demurrer is sustained in part and overruled in part. Specifically, the demurrer of Kimball, Tirey, & St. John is sustained without leave to amend. The demurrer of the landlord is overruled. The landlord shall answer the complaint within 20 days.
Analysis:
KTS demurs on the ground that there is no allegation that KTS interfered with the plaintiff’s right of possession. The Court agrees. The complaint alleges that KTS represented the landlord in the eviction proceedings but fails to allege any facts tending to show that KTS took possession of the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff alleges the conclusion that KTS converted his property (para. 3) but a legal conclusion is not an allegation of fact.
The demurrer of KTS shall be sustained without leave to amend unless the plaintiff offers an explanation of what additional facts can be truthfully alleged as to KTS to cure this defect.
The landlord’s demurrer fails to demonstrate that the plaintiff ‘s SAC does not sufficiently allege facts to state a claim. The plaintiffs alleges: that he owned personal property; that his property was left behind in the landlord’s premises when he was evicted; that the landlord failed to give him any notice of abandonment; that despite that omission, he asked the landlord to return his property; and that the landlord failed to return it. Although the plaintiff may have misstated the terms of the notice of abandonment to which he was allegedly entitled, that does not render insufficient the allegation that the landlord failed to give any notice to him.
5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME ROBINSON VS COUNTY DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED
OF RIVERSIDE COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling: The Court does not consider either the declaration of Richardson or the documents attached to the plaintiff’s notice of errata.
The demurrer to the FAC is sustained in part and overruled in part. In particular:
• The demurrers to the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action are overruled. • The demurrer to the fifth cause of action is sustained without leave to amend, and the cause of action is dismissed with prejudice. The Court shall prepare a written order of dismissal.
The case management conference is continued to 7-28-26 at 8:30 A.M. in this department.
Analysis:
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The declaration of Richardson and the exhibits to which the declaration refers are irrelevant, since a demurrer is limited to the allegations of the pleading being challenged and any relevant matters of which judicial notice is taken.
The first cause of action sufficiently alleges a claim for racial discrimination. Therefore, the Court need not determine whether it also sufficiently alleges gender or disability discrimination, since a demurrer may be sustained only if a cause of action fails to sufficiently allege any claim.
The second cause of action sufficiently alleges a FEHA harassment claim. The allegation that the racial mockery occurred on a “pervasive and consistent basis” is a factual assertion of repeated conduct, not a mere recharacterization of a single event. The third cause of action adequately pleads the plaintiff’s complaint of Heath’s racial discriminatory conduct, the plaintiff’s termination, and a temporal sequence from which a causal link between the two may be inferred.
The fourth cause of action is sufficient. Although paragraph 54 frames the claim around sex/gender and disability/physical condition, the incorporated factual allegations assert that Plaintiff reported Heath’s conduct, that Defendant failed to investigate or correct it, and that Defendant failed to discipline Heath. Liberally construed, those factual allegations support a race-based failure-to-prevent theory that is viable as a derivative of the race-discrimination and harassment claims.
The plaintiff concedes that the demurrer to the fifth cause of action should be sustained without leave.