Jones v. Myers

# Case Name Tentative

54. Jones v. The demurrer by defendant Susanne Myre (erroneously sued Myers as Susanne Myers) to plaintiff Desiree Jones’ Complaint is OVERRULED as to the 1st cause of action for defamation, and 2026- on grounds of uncertainty, and SUSTAINED, with limited leave 015404467 to amend, as to the 3rd cause of action for “Interference with Legal Process and Obstruction of Mail.”

Uncertainty.

Moving party cites Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f), in the notice of demurrer, but the moving papers do not address this ground. The Complaint is not so uncertain that defendant cannot determine the nature of the claims alleged, or how to respond. (Khoury v. Maly's of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.)

1st cause of action: defamation.

This cause of action alleges sufficient facts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720 [elements]; Complaint at 1:25-2:2 [“On or about December 2nd 2020, Defendant made false, unprivileged statements to the HOA Board and neighbors, including ... [t]hat Plaintiff committed ‘mortgage fraud,’” which statements “are defamatory per se as they falsely charge Plaintiff with a crime and tend directly to injure Plaintiff in her profession”].)

While moving party contends this action is time-barred, the demurrer fails to address the delayed discovery allegations, which appear sufficient. (Complaint at 3:16-27; Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 808 [“In order to rely on the discovery rule for delayed accrual of a cause of action, ‘[a] plaintiff whose complaint shows on its face that his claim would be barred without the benefit of the discovery rule must specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.’”

Whether or not plaintiff in fact committed mortgage fraud may be proven true or false, and thus is not inactionable opinion, as argued by moving party. (See Gallagher v. Connell (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1271 [“The essential difference between a statement of fact and a statement of opinion is that a statement of fact implies a provably false factual assertion while a statement of opinion does not”].)

3rd cause of action: “Interference with Legal Process and Obstruction of Mail.”

# Case Name Tentative

This cause of action fails to allege sufficient facts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) There is no private right of action for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1701. (Woods v. McGuire (6th Cir. 1992) 954 F.2d 388, 391.)

Limited leave to amend is granted, to allege some other common law tort, if available. (See Opposition at 2:24-3:5.)

The court observes that the facts alleged could potentially support claims for some other common law tort. (See Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39 [a complaint is good against a general demurrer if it states a cause of action on any theory].) However, as currently alleged, there are insufficient facts pled to show the nature of the tort, and how plaintiff was damaged by defendant’s conduct.

Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint, if at all, within 15 days.

The case management conference is continued to February 1, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28.

Moving party shall give notice of this ruling.

55. Rume Defendants Aetna Health of California, Inc.; Aetna Life Medical Insurance Co.; Aetna Better Health of California, Inc.; Aetna Group, Inc. Health and Life Insurance Co.’s demurrer to Plaintiff Rume v. Aetna Medical Group, Inc.’s Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT Health of LEAVE TO AMEND as to Cause of Action 9 and otherwise California, OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc. §430.10, subd. (e).) Inc. Defendants shall file an Answer to the Complaint within 20 2026- days of this ruling. 01550393 General Legal Standard on Demurrer

In ruling on a demurrer, a court must accept as true all allegations of fact contained in the complaint. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 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.)

Questions of fact cannot be decided on demurrer. (Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1556.) Because a demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the complaint, a court will not consider facts that have not been alleged in the complaint unless they may be reasonably inferred from the matters alleged or are proper subjects of