DEMURRER ON COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF JOHN DOE BY WILMA AND FRIEDA’S, INC., LANDMARK 99 ENTERPRISES, INC., LEVI TOPHAM, KELLY LORENE MCFALL
did not log onto Airbnb for the reservation for the premises involved in this lawsuit. (Id. ¶¶ 5-7.) Plaintiff’s claims arise from injuries he sustained due to a dangerous condition of property, not for breach of Airbnb’s TOS. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.) Moreover, Plaintiff cannot be required to arbitrate his personal injury claims, which are unrelated to his account with Airbnb. (Moritz, supra.) Airbnb’s position that Plaintiff is required to arbitrate all disputes he has or may ever have with Airbnb even when the dispute has no nexus to his own Airbnb contract, is untenable. In fact the TOS itself refers to “any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to these Terms”. (Motion, p. 3:14-18; see also, Dec. Pfeiffer ¶¶ 10-12 Ex. “E”, Terms of Service [TOS] dated 5/19/24 § 22.4, [p. 48 of 91].) (emphasis added.)
Defendant, Airbnb acknowledges that Plaintiff is a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement but, it argues the agreement covers Plaintiff through the principles of agency and estoppel. However, since Plaintiff’s claim is not subject to the arbitration agreement in his Airbnb contract, as discussed above, he cannot be compelled to arbitration.
Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings DENIED.
Case Management Conference confirmed for 7.30.26.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME DEMURRER ON COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF JOHN DOE VS WILMA AND DOE BY WILMA AND FRIEDA'S, INC., FRIEDA'S, INC. LANDMARK 99 ENTERPRISES, INC., LEVI TOPHAM, KELLY LORENE MCFALL Tentative Ruling: “The names of all parties to a civil action must be included in the complaint.” (Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Superior Court (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105, 109.)
This is important for two reasons. First, there would be significant constitutional concerns if the plaintiff’s identity is not known to the defendants. (Id at 110.) Moreover, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees public access to court proceedings, which necessarily includes the right to know the identity of the parties. (Id at 110-111) However, due to “the inherently sensitive nature of some proceedings, statutes specifically allow for keeping certain parties’ identities confidential.” (Id. at 110.) “Even in the absence of a statute, anonymity for parties may be granted when necessary to preserve an important privacy interest.” (Id.) Pseudonyms may be used to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment. (Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp. (2000, 9th Cir.) 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-1068.)
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?”
A plaintiff seeking to file a complaint anonymously must file it conditionally using the pseudonym and then move for an order granting permission to proceed with the pseudonym. (Department of Fair Employment & Housing, supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at 111, fn. 1.) “If the request is granted, the initial pleading can remain. If pseudonym use is denied, the pleading must be amended to state the party’s true name.” (Ibid.) “Before a party to a civil action can be permitted to use a pseudonym, the trial court must conduct a hearing and apply the overriding interest test: A party’s request for anonymity should be granted only if the court finds that an overriding interest will likely be prejudiced without use of a pseudonym, and that it is not feasible to protect the interest with less impact on the constitutional right of access.” (Id. at 111.)
The factors to be considered include: (1) the severity of the threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the fears; (3) the party's vulnerability to retaliation, and (4) prejudice to the opposing party, as well as mitigation of that prejudice. (Does I thru XXIII, supra, 214 F. 3d at 1068.) The party seeking anonymity has the burden of showing an overriding interest. (Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing, supra, 82 Cal. App. 5th at 112.)
Because the overriding interest test defined above involves factual determinations beyond the scope of the Complaint, these issues cannot be addressed on demurrer. (See Blank v. Kirwin, supra, 39 Cal, 3d at 318 [On demurrer, courts may only consider pleaded factual allegations.]) Moreover, CCP § 430.10 sets forth the grounds on which a party can file a demurrer.
Demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendants to file an answer within 10 days.
An Order to Show Cause re Use of Pseudonym is scheduled for 7.29.26. Plaintiff directed to submit a brief addressing the rational for permitting use of a pseudonym by 7.20.26. Defendant to file a response by 7.24.26. No other briefing shall be permitted.
Case Management Conference remains scheduled for 8.26.26.
5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME BALON, AN INDIVIDUAL VS DEMURRER ON COMPLAINT OF RICK CVPS2601172 SKY VALLEY EAST BALON, AN INDIVIDUAL BY SKY RESORT, LLC VALLEY EAST RESORT, LLC Tentative Ruling: No Opposition filed.
Demurrer by Defendant Sky Valley East Resort, LLC as to the 4th 5th, and 6th Causes of Action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 10 days.
Case Management Conference is confirmed for 9.03.26. An Order to Show Cause re Proof of Service for Defendant Tyler Jacob Mathewson will be set for the same date.