Michael Sapien vs Joe Sapien

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is OVERRULED IN PART and SUSTAINED IN PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the affected pleading, not the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading or the pleader’s ability to prove those allegations. (Cundiff v. GTE Cal., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404-05.) Plaintiff’s complaint appears to allege a single cause of action for fraud. “[F]raud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)

Here, Plaintiff makes the conclusory statement that Defendant “fraudulently transferred the Title of my 1968 Shelby from my name Michael A. Sapien to his name Joe F. Sapi en on or around June 1, 2025.” (Complaint ¶ 4.) There are no facts supporting this statement and Plaintiff has not pled any facts to support the elements of a fraud cause of action. Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, on the basis of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer as to jurisdiction is OVERRULED. The complaint states that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000. This may include an amount greater than the required amount of $35,000 for an unlimited civil matter. The remedy should the amount in controversy not exceed $35,000 would be for the court to reclassify the matter as a limited civil matter.

The demurrer as to formatting is OVERRULED. The court is to take a liberal view of inartfully drawn pleadings. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 452.)

The special demurrer asserting the complaint fails to contain a statement of facts is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Code of Civil Procedure sectio n 425.10 requires the complaint contain a statement of facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language. (See, Code Civ. Proc. § 425.10, subd. (a).) Here, the complaint does not contain a statement of facts.

Leave to amend is granted. “[F]or an original complaint, regardless whether the plaintiff has requested leave to amend, it has long been the rule that a trial court’s denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the complaint ‘shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment.’” (