MEJIA, et al. vs WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., et al.

25CV010778: MEJIA, et al. vs WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., et al. 07/22/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

25CV010778: MEJIA, et al. vs WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., et al. 07/22/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 8D

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely, in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Wyndham Destinations, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, Capital City Hospitality, Inc., Travelodge by Wyndham Sacramento Convention Center, and Bipin G. Ahir’s (collectively, “Defendants”) demurrer to Plaintiffs Rubin Mejia and Luna- Marie Mejia’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) complaint is ruled on as follows.

Background

This is a personal injury case arising out of Plaintiffs’ stay at Travelodge by Wyndham Sacramento Convention Center on May 27, 2023, during which they sustained bed bug bites. (Compl., ¶¶ 1, 8, 16.) Plaintiffs allege causes of action for: (1) Battery; (2) Negligence; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (4) Fraudulent Concealment; (5) Private Nuisance; (6) Public Nuisance; (7) Breach of Contract; and (8) Premises Liability.

Defendants demur to each of the causes of action on the basis that the Complaint does not allege facts constituting a cause of action; to the causes of action for Private

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010778: MEJIA, et al. vs WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., et al. 07/22/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 8D

Nuisance and Public Nuisance on the basis that the Complaint is uncertain; and as to the cause of action for breach of contract, that it cannot be ascertained whether the alleged contract is written, oral, or implied.[1] Plaintiffs oppose the demurrer on all grounds.

Legal Standard

The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Super. Ct. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.)

For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view towards substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140–141; Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111–1112.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “[P]laintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . . [W]e are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 697.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action, not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) The Court draws all reasonable implications and inferences in favor of upholding the complaint. (Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 1112.)

A defendant may demur to a complaint on the grounds that it is uncertain, ambiguous or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) Demurrers for uncertainty are sustained only when “the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GCL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) The standard is permissive. A complaint need only “sufficiently appris[e] defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet” because ambiguities can be

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010778: MEJIA, et al. vs WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., et al. 07/22/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 8D

clarified during discovery. (Ibid. [quoting Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2].)

Analysis

First Cause of Action – Battery

The elements of a cause of action for battery are “(1) defendant touched plaintiff, or caused plaintiff to be touched, with the intent to harm or offend plaintiff; (2) plaintiff did not consent to the touching; (3) plaintiff was harmed or offended by defendant's conduct; and (4) a reasonable person in plaintiff's position would have been offended by the touching.” (So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 669.)

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ “intentional, deliberate, and reckless actions and inactions caused Plaintiffs to be touched by the infestation of bed bugs. This resulted in the offensive and unconsented contact with the body of the Plaintiffs.” (Compl., ¶ 52.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, having knowledge of the bed bug infestation, took deliberate actions to fail to inspect, fail to treat, fail to train staff, and fail to give notice to Plaintiffs, with the intent to cause or with a reckless and willful disregard of the probability of causing the offensive contact. (Id., ¶¶ 29, 53–54.) Plaintiffs allege that at all relevant times all Defendants “were acting in concert of participating with each other and were the agents or employees of others in doing the acts complained of.” (Id., ¶ 10.)

Defendants argue that battery cannot be generally alleged but cite no authority for this proposition. Defendants point out that the Complaint contains no facts that Defendant Ahir touched, or caused to be touched, Plaintiffs with the intent to harm or offend.

Plaintiffs theory is that Defendants’ conduct of recklessly or willfully renting them the room with knowledge of the bed bug infestation constituted a battery. Battery requires only that a Defendant caused Plaintiffs to be touched, not directly touched Plaintiffs. Intent may be found when a person “performs an act so unreasonable and dangerous that he or she knows or should know it is highly probable that harm will result.” (City of Santa Barbara v. Super. Ct. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 754, fn. 4.)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a battery. Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action is OVERRULED.

Second Cause of Action – Negligence

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010778: MEJIA, et al. vs WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., et al. 07/22/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 8D

To state a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must allege duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 480.)

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants had a duty to use reasonable care in operating and maintaining Plaintiffs’ hotel room, including ensuring the room to be sanitary, safe, and clean. (Compl., ¶ 64.) Plaintiffs allege a breach of this duty by Defendants’ actions and inactions in allowing the infestation to become established, failing to eradicate the infestation, choosing not to inspect the room, failing to properly train staff, and failing to notify Plaintiffs. (Id., ¶ 66.) Plaintiffs allege that they were harmed as a result of these breaches. (Id., ¶¶ 65, 69.)

Defendants argue, apparently, that the allegations are not specific enough to state a claim of negligence or are purely conclusory. Again, Defendants cite no authority to support their argument beyond that for the elements of negligence.

The Court disagrees with Defendants’ view of the allegations. The Complaint does not fail to state a negligence cause of action even if the Complaint alleges facts only about Defendants’ conduct generally, rather than any particular Defendant’s conduct.

Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action is OVERRULED.

Third Cause of Action – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The elements of a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress are (1) extreme and outrageous conduct with either the intention of causing or reckless disregard for the probability of causing emotional distress; (2) severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate cause. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050.) Outrageous conduct in this context is “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” (Id, 46 Cal.4th at p. 1051 [internal quotation marks omitted].) Whether conduct is sufficiently outrageous is usually a question of fact that survives demurrer. (Bock v. Hansen (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 215, 235.)

Defendants contend, again without citation to authority, that this tort bears a “high burden” and that Plaintiffs do not show how any defendant specifically caused harm.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ intentional, extreme, and outrageous conduct of renting the room, knowing it to be infested with bed bugs, caused Plaintiffs severe emotional distress. (Compl., ¶¶ 82, 88.) The Court finds that whether renting an infested room, as alleged, is sufficiently extreme and outrageous is a question of fact that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010778: MEJIA, et al. vs WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., et al. 07/22/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 8D

survives demurrer.

Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Third Cause of Action is OVERRULED.

Fourth Cause of Action – Fraudulent Concealment

“[T]he elements of an action for fraud and deceit based on concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.” (Marketing West, Inc. v. Sanyo Fisher (USA) Corp. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 603, 612–613.)

Defendants cite to Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645, as authority that Plaintiffs must identify who made the allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations, their authority to speak, what they said, and when it was said in order to state a fraud claim. However, that rule expresses the requirement for satisfying the element of misrepresentation in a cause of action for fraud based on an affirmative misrepresentation. (See also Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.) Here, Plaintiff's cause of action is not based on affirmative misrepresentations. Rather, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants fraudulently concealed material facts by failing to disclose the existence of a bed bug infestation in the room rented to Plaintiffs.

Defendants also contend that fraud requires specific pleading.

While true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have done so. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants—including front desk personnel and housekeeping staff—had knowledge of the bed bug infestation through prior online reviews. (Compl., ¶ 95, 96.) As alleged, Defendants intentionally did not disclose this material fact, of which Plaintiff was not aware, with the intent to deceive for profit. (Id., ¶¶ 98, 103.) On demurrer, the Court takes all these allegations as true.

Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Cause of Action is OVERRULED.

Fifth Cause of Action – Private Nuisance

“Anything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010778: MEJIA, et al. vs WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., et al. 07/22/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 8D

controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.” (Civ. Code, § 3479.) A cause of action based on a private nuisance requires a plaintiff to allege an injury specific to the use and enjoyment of plaintiff’s land. (Adams v. MHC Colony Park, L.P. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 601, 610.)

Defendants contend by way of rhetorical question and without citation to authority that the Complaint is vague and lacks specificity. Plaintiffs allege unsanitary and uninhabitable conditions that substantially interfered with Plaintiffs’ comfortable enjoyment of their hotel room. (Compl. ¶ 114.) The Complaint is reasonably specific and sufficiently apprises defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet.

Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action is OVERRULED.

Sixth Cause of Action – Public Nuisance

“A public nuisance is [a nuisance] which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” (Civ. Code, § 3480.)

Defendants contend that the complaint contains no facts demonstrating that the alleged infestation affected a considerable number of people. Plaintiffs allege that many guests stated in online reviews and complaints that they woke up to bed bug bites. (Compl., ¶ 28.) Further, Plaintiffs allege a bed bug infestation throughout Defendants’ hotel, not only in the room Plaintiffs rented, affecting a broader group of people than only Plaintiffs. (Id., ¶¶ 25, 29.) The Complaint is reasonably specific and sufficiently apprises defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet.

Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Sixth Cause of Action is OVERRULED.

Seventh Cause of Action – Breach of Contract

The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff. (Reichert v. General Ins. Co. of America (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 830.) “If the action is based on alleged breach of a written contract, the terms must be set out verbatim in the body of the complaint or a copy of the written agreement must be attached and incorporated by reference.” (Harris

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010778: MEJIA, et al. vs WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., et al. 07/22/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 8D

v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 307.)

Plaintiffs allege that they entered into a “written contract” with Defendants to rent the room. (Compl., ¶ 130.) Allegedly, Defendants breached this contract by failing to provide a habitable room. (Id., ¶ 133.)

Plaintiffs do not set out verbatim any terms of the alleged contract or attach a copy. In opposition, Plaintiffs contend that “further discovery would be needed to exactly classify the contract of the room reservation in this case,” noting it could be written or oral. However, as set forth above, the Complaint expressly alleges a “written contract.” The Court must view the facts as they are currently alleged in the operative pleading.

Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Seventh Cause of Action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Eighth Cause of Action – Premises Liability

“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Staats v. Vintner’s Golf Club, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 826, 832.) “[T]hose who own or occupy property have a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition.” (Id. at p. 833.) This duty requires a person to reasonably inspect and to warn of or remedy dangerous conditions. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants own, operate, and manage the hotel. (Compl., ¶¶ 4–8, 136.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached their duty of care by failing to properly maintain, manage, control or warn Plaintiffs of the bed bug infestation. (Id., ¶ 138.) Plaintiffs allege that they were injured as a result of this breach. (Id., ¶ 139.)

Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Eighth Cause of Action is OVERRULED.

Disposition

Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ complaint is SUSTAINED as to the Seventh Cause of Action for breach of contract. The Court grants leave to amend as this is the first challenge to the complaint. (City of Stockton v. Super. Ct. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 747.)

Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED as to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Causes of Action.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010778: MEJIA, et al. vs WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, INC., et al. 07/22/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Complaint in Department 8D

Plaintiffs may file and serve an amended complaint no later than August 10, 2026. Although not required by statute or court rule, Plaintiff is directed to present the clerk a copy of this ruling at the time of filing the First Amended Complaint. Defendant may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the First Amended Complaint, 35 days if served by mail.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] Several of Defendants’ asserted grounds relate to a person or entity named “Taylor.”

(See, e.g., Demurrer, at p. 3:16–17.) No “Taylor” is named in the action. Despite a diligent review of the Complaint, the Court finds no reference to “Taylor.”

The Court could disregard these grounds for the demurrer entirely. “A demurrer shall distinctly specify the grounds upon which any of the objections to the complaint, crosscomplaint, or answer are taken. Unless it does so, it may be disregarded.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.60; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(a).) However, Defendants argue these grounds and Plaintiffs respond substantively as though they were directed towards the Complaint generally. The Court will rule on the asserted grounds on the assumption that the reference to “Taylor” is an inadvertent document-template error.

Plaintiffs’ briefing suffers similar defects. For instance, Plaintiffs refer to the County of Riverside for no discernible reason. (Opp., at p. 17:3.) Both parties are admonished to take better care in preparing their papers. Erroneous and irrelevant statements obscure the issues and waste the Court’s time.