Nava vs. Ortscheid

Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR DEPARTMENT N16

HON. Donald F. Gaffney

Counsel and Parties Please Note: Law and Motion in Department N16 is heard on Wednesdays at 9:00 a.m.

Date: August 19, 2026

Tentative Rulings will be posted on the Internet on the day before the hearing by 5:00 p.m. [or earlier] whenever possible. To submit on the tentative ruling, please contact the clerk at (657) 622-5616, after contacting opposing party/counsel. Prevailing party shall give notice of the Ruling and prepare the Order/Judgment for the Court’s signature if required.

NOTE: After posting of tentative rulings, the Court will not take the motion off calendar and will grant a continuance of the motion only upon stipulation of all affected parties.

If no appearances are made on the calendared motion date, then oral argument will be deemed to have been waived and the tentative ruling will become the Court’s final ruling.

# Case Name Tentative 1 Nava vs. Ortscheid TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Robert Ortscheid’s demurrer to Plaintiff Arturo Nava’s Complaint is SUSTAINED.

Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to amend.

Statement of Law

A demurrer only tests the sufficiency of the pleadings. (See Satyadi v. West Contra Costa Healthcare District (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1028 [in analyzing a demurrer, the court looks only to the face of the pleadings and to matters judicially noticeable and not to the evidence or other extrinsic matters]).

In reviewing the propriety of the sustaining of a demurrer, the “court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. [Citations.] The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.] The judgment must be affirmed ‘if any one of the several grounds of demurrer is well taken. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] However, it is error for a trial court to sustain

a demurrer when the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory. [Citation.] And it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment.” (Hale v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1379 [citing Aubry v. Tri–City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967].). 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 judicial notice. (Hall v. Great W. Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 713, 718 fn.7.)

Merits

Plaintiff filed a complaint on Judicial Council Form, Complaint PLD- PI-001, asserting one cause of action for motor vehicle under paragraph 10 of the form Complaint. However, there are no attachments, and there are no facts regarding the incident. (See Compl. [ROA 2]).

Defendant demurrers on the basis that Plaintiff failed to state any facts to constitute a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence and failed to include any attachments, and on the basis that the Complaint is uncertain.

Code Civ. Proc. § 425.10 provides as follows:

(a) A complaint or cross-complaint shall contain both of the following:

(1) A statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language. ...

As the court held in People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1486: “In some cases, merely checking a box on a Judicial Council form complaint will be sufficient. In other cases, such as this one, where specific allegations need be alleged, the form complaint is like a partially completed painting. It is up to the pleader to add the details that complete the picture. The form complaint here, standing alone, is no more immune to demurrer than any other complaint that fails to meet essential pleading requirements to state a cause of action.”

Thus, “in order to be demurrer-proof, a form ‘complaint must contain whatever ultimate facts are essential to state a cause of action under

existing statutes or case law.’” (Id. at 1484 [emphasis in original, internal citations omitted]).

Regarding uncertainty, the court will only sustain a demurrer for uncertainty if it is so poorly drafted that defendants cannot reasonably respond. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.).

Here, Plaintiff failed to plead any facts supporting the cause of action for motor vehicle. In the Judicial Council Form Complaint, PLD-PI- 001, paragraph 10 states: “The following causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or more causes of action attached).” Plaintiff did not provide any attachment and there are no other facts alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to plead any ultimate facts in support of his claim.

Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to oppose. (See Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20 [“Plaintiffs did not oppose the County’s demurrer to this portion of their seventh cause of action and have submitted no argument on the issue in their briefs on appeal. Accordingly, we deem plaintiffs to have abandoned the issue”.]).

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained.

Should Plaintiff desire to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall file and serve the amended complaint within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.

Defendant shall give notice.

2 Neumann vs. TENTATIVE RULING: Mull Before the court are the following demurrers/motions:

• Demurrer by Defendant JM Welding Products, LLC to the third amended complaint (the “LLC Defendant’s Demurrer”) • Demurrer by Defendants Andrew Burke, Thomas Bruno, Sara Abrams, and James Mull to the third amended complaint (the “Individual Defendants’ Demurrer”) • Motion to Strike by Defendant JM Welding Products, LLC to the third amended complaint (the “LLC Defendant’s Motion to Strike”) and