Defendant Kohan’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
2025CUPP055353: STEVEN R VAN HOOK vs CHANNEL ISLANDS HOA, et al. 05/29/2026 in Department 42 Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
Motion: Defendant Kohans Demurrer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint Tentative Ruling: The Court SUSTAINS Defendant Bijan Kohans unopposed Demurrer to each cause of action in the First Amended Complaint (FAC) on grounds of uncertainty and because the FAC fails state facts sufficient to constitute the causes of action. (CCP §§4301.10, subds. (e) and (f).) The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend all causes of action except negligent infliction of emotional distress, with an amended complaint to be filed and served no earlier than June 15 and no later than July 3, 2026.
The demurrer to the negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action is sustained without leave to amend, because this claim is duplicative of Plaintiffs negligence claim. Moving party to give notice. Background: In pro per Plaintiff filed a Judicial Council form Complaint on December 12, 2025 against defendants Channel Islands HOA, Gold Coast Property Management Co., and Bijan Kohan for (1) General Negligence; (2) Intentional Tort; (3) Premises Liability. Plaintiff alleges that defendants negligently failed to maintain the propertys plumbing infrastructure and Plaintiff was injured by chronic exposure to toxic mold.
On February 11, 2026, the Court sustained two demurrers, with leave to amend, and found the motion to strike moot. On February 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a 7-page non-Judicial Council form First Amended Complaint with seven exhibits attached and eight (8) causes of action, 1) negligence, 2) breach of implied warranty of habitability, 3) breach of contract, 4) nuisance, 5) negligent infliction of emotional distress, 6) battery (pathogenic), 7) fraud (scientific notice) and 8) financial elder abuse.
On May 18, 2026, Plaintiffs request to file an amended complaint (filed on April 16, 2026) was denied without prejudice. The Court explained that the proposed second amended complaint only minimally addressed the deficiencies identified in pending demurrers and motions to strike. The Court found that resources would be best conserved by ruling on the demurrers and motions to strike before ruling on any motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Defendant Kohans motion to strike is scheduled to be heard June 12, 2026.
Defendants Channel Islands HOA and Gold Coast Property Management Co. have a demurrer and motion to strike set for hearing on June 9, 2026. Defendant Kohan argues here that all of Plaintiffs causes of action are uncertain, including as to the statute of limitations. The allegations go back to 2008. The allegations are conclusory and fail to allege all required elements of the causes of action. The demurrer is unopposed.
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?”
2025CUPP055353: STEVEN R VAN HOOK vs CHANNEL ISLANDS HOA, et al.
Discussion:
The grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Concerning the legal sufficiency of a pleading, the sole issue on demurrer is whether the facts pleaded, if true, state a valid cause of action i.e., if the complaint pleads facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. (LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 339.) It is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable probability that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v.
City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.) Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and should only be sustained where the complaint is so bad that the demurring defendant cannot reasonably respond thereto. (see, e.g., Khoury v. Maly's of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616). Application The allegations in the First Amended Complaint are vague and uncertain to the extent that the moving Defendant cannot discern what actions fall within the applicable statute of limitations period for any cause of action.
For example, Plaintiff alleges that This action arises from a seventeen-year systemic failure (¶1) over nearly two decades (¶2). Plaintiff identifies 2008 Inception (¶7), 2017 (¶8), and COVID-Era (¶9) as potential time frames for his claims, but these time frames add no clarity given that the applicable statutes of limitation range from two to four years. For each of his claims, Plaintiff needs to identify the conduct that occurred during a viable time period so the defendants understand what conduct they are being asked to address.
In addition to the ambiguity as to time, the FAC fails to clearly include all of the required elements of each cause of action. For example, the elder abuse claim does not include that Plaintiff is a qualifying individual and does not explain what property was taken or obtained, instead alleging that his credit score was target[ed]. There are no allegations as to why the eviction targeting his credit score was wrongful, especially given the overwhelming habitability concerns Plaintiff identifies.
Plaintiffs harm from the targeting of his credit score is also not alleged. Similarly, Plaintiff fails to plead a claim for breach of contract. He fails to identify the parties to the contract, the contract terms, the terms that were breached and his damages. Plaintiff asserts a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress but there is no such separate cause of action. The claim is one for negligence, which Plaintiff already asserts. Plaintiff brings a fraud cause of action but fails to plead all of the required elements with specificity, including identifying each defendants role in the alleged fraud.
The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend all causes of action except negligent infliction of emotional distress, with an amended complaint to be filed and served no earlier than June 15 and no later than July 3, 2026. The demurrer to the negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action is sustained without leave to amend, because this claim is duplicative of Plaintiffs negligence claim.
2