This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/09/2019 at 03:32:06 (UTC).

SONIA M. CARRANZA, ET AL. VS GEICO HOME INSURANCE, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 05/22/2019 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by SONIA M CARRANZA against GEICO HOME INSURANCE in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4873

  • Filing Date:

    05/22/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

CARRANZA MARIA M.

CARRANZA SONIA M.

Defendants

TRI-TECH RESTORATION

VOGE INC.

HOMESITE HOME INS.

GEICO HOME INSURANCE

 

Court Documents

Answer - Answer

6/28/2019: Answer - Answer

Motion to Quash Service of Summons - Motion to Quash Service of Summons

7/3/2019: Motion to Quash Service of Summons - Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

7/3/2019: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

6/17/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) - Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) Motion to Strike Letter 06/14/2019 Answer to Tharpe & Howe

6/17/2019: Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) - Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) Motion to Strike Letter 06/14/2019 Answer to Tharpe & Howe

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

6/17/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

6/17/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

6/17/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Summons - Summons on Complaint

6/3/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) GRANTED

5/23/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) GRANTED

Complaint - Complaint

5/22/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/22/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

5/22/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

5/22/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

5/22/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

4 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/03/2019
  • Motion to Quash Service of Summons; Filed by: Homesite Home Ins. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by: Homesite Home Ins. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 08/12/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • Answer; Filed by: Voge, Inc., Construction and Remodeling Erroneously Sued As Voge Inc. (Defendant); As to: Sonia M. Carranza (Plaintiff); Maria M. Carranza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Sonia M. Carranza (Plaintiff); As to: Tri-Tech Restoration (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 06/05/2019; Service Cost: 7.35; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Sonia M. Carranza (Plaintiff); As to: Voge Inc. (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 06/05/2019; Service Cost: 7.35; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Sonia M. Carranza (Plaintiff); As to: Homesite Home Ins. (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 06/05/2019; Service Cost: 7.35; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Sonia M. Carranza (Plaintiff); As to: Geico Home Insurance (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 06/05/2019; Service Cost: 7.35; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) Motion to Strike Letter 06/14/2019 Answer to Tharpe & Howell, LLP Behalf Homesite Home Insurance Verbal Summons/ Complaint Verify; Filed by: Sonia M. Carranza (Plaintiff); Maria M. Carranza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Hearing on Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) scheduled for 08/05/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
3 More Docket Entries
  • 05/22/2019
  • Complaint; Filed by: Sonia M. Carranza (Plaintiff); Maria M. Carranza (Plaintiff); As to: Geico Home Insurance (Defendant); Homesite Home Ins. (Defendant); Tri-Tech Restoration (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/25/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Sonia M. Carranza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Maria M. Carranza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Maria M. Carranza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Sonia M. Carranza (Plaintiff); Maria M. Carranza (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • First Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Case assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/18/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC04873    Hearing Date: March 11, 2020    Dept: 32

sonia m. carranza and maria m. Carranza,

Plaintiffs,

v.

geico home insurance, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19STLC04873

Hearing Date: March 11, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

tri-tech’s demurrer to the third amended complaint

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Sonia M. Carranza (“Sonia”) and Maria M. Carranza (“Maria”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this lawsuit against Defendants Geico Home Insurance (“Geico”), Homesite Home Insurance (“Homesite”), Tri-Tech Restoration (“Tri-Tech”), and Voge Inc. (“Voge”) on May 22, 2019. Plaintiffs dismissed the action with prejudice as to Geico and Homesite on December 17, 2019.

On November 19, 2019, Sonia filed three pleadings styled as “Declarations” against Homesite, Tri-Tech, and Voge. The “pleading” against Tri-Tech (“Tri-Tech TAC”) is a jumbled assortment of Judicial Council forms and exhibits. The Tri-Tech TAC appears to assert two causes of action: (1) negligence and (2) fraud. The Tri-Tech TAC alleges in pertinent part as follows.

Sonia purchased a home insurance policy from Geico and underwritten by Homesite.

On December 3, 2018, Sonia’s home suffered major water damage. Sonia lost several pieces of clothing, furniture, and electronic equipment due to the water damage. Sonia tendered a claim to Homesite which acknowledged receipt of the claim and began its investigation.

On December 13, 2018, Sonia entered into a contract with Tri-Tech for emergency work on her home. Tri-Tech concealed the price that Tri-Tech would charge for the work.

On December 17, 2018, Homesite informed Sonia that it had completed its investigation and decided to deny coverage for her loss because her policy “excludes coverage for the repair or replacement of the worn and deteriorated plumbing.”

On February 15, 2019, Tri-Tech abandoned the project with the residence still in disarray.

On March 28, 2019, Tri-Tech collected $17,000 for the work performed.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.) The court must treat as true all the complaint’s material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Id. at 732-33.) The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Id. at 733.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant Tri-Tech demurs to the Tri-Tech TAC on the grounds that each of its causes of action is uncertain and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

A. Uncertainty

Tri-Tech argues that the Tri-Tech TAC is uncertain. The Court disagrees.

Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored. (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.) Such demurrers are strictly construed, even where a complaint is uncertain in some respects, because ambiguities can reasonably be clarified under modern rules of discovery. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Demurrers for uncertainty will almost certainly be overruled where: (1) they are directed to inconsequential matters; (2) the facts alleged in the complaint are presumptively within the knowledge of the demurring party or ascertainable by invoking discovery procedures; or (3) they are not dispositive of one or more causes of action. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶ 7:86.)

In this case, the Tri-Tech TAC is certainly not a model of good pleading. The Tri-Tech TAC is disorganized and often inscrutable. Even so, the Court concludes that the pleading is not fatally uncertain. The gist of the pleading against Tri-Tech is that Sonia suffered water damage, contracted with Tri-Tech to have the damages repaired, and was damaged by Tri-Tech’s abandonment of the repair work. Lingering uncertainties about Sonia’s claims can be cleared up through discovery.

B. Failure to State Facts

1. Negligence

Tri-Tech contends that Sonia has failed to state facts sufficient to support each element of her negligence claim. The Court disagrees.

“The elements of a negligence cause of action are the existence of a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) “Ordinarily, negligence may be pleaded in general terms and the plaintiff need not specify the precise act or omission alleged to constitute the breach of duty.” (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795.)

Reading the allegations of the Tri-Tech liberally and in context, the Court concludes that Sonia has alleged each element of negligence. Specifically, Sonia has alleged that Tri-Tech owed Sonia a duty as a contractor to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of its profession commonly possess and exercise. (See Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 746 (element of professional negligence).) Sonia has alleged that Tri-Tech breached this duty by abandoning the repair work before its completion and leaving her residence in disarray. Finally, Sonia has alleged that Tri-Tech’s breach caused her to suffer damages.

Tri-Tech’s demurrer to Sonia’s first cause of action for negligence is overruled.

2. Fraud

Defendants argue that Sonia has failed to plead each element of fraud with particularity. The Court agrees.

The elements of fraud are (1) a misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure), (2) knowledge of falsity (scienter), (3) intent to defraud i.e., to induce reliance, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage. (Estate of Young (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 62, 79.)

Fraud must be pleaded with specificity rather than with general and conclusory allegations. (Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248.) This means that a plaintiff must plead every element of fraud with specificity (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157) and plead facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered (Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1614). In addition, when a plaintiff is asserting fraud against a corporate defendant, the plaintiff must allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written. (Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 821, 838.)

Plaintiff has not plead facts showing (1) how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered or (2) the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.

Demurrer must be sustained on this basis. Because Sonia’s fourth attempt to plead an adequate fraud claim has failed, the Court will not give Sonia leave to amend this cause of action.

CONCLUSION

Tri-Tech’s demurrer to the Tri-Tech TAC is overruled as to the first cause of action for negligence and sustained without leave to amend as to the second cause of action for fraud.

Case Number: 19STLC04873    Hearing Date: March 06, 2020    Dept: 32

sonia m. carranza and maria m. Carranza,

Plaintiffs,

v.

geico home insurance, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19STLC04873

Hearing Date: March 6, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

tri-tech’s motion for an order deeming the truth of matters in its requests for admission admitted

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Sonia M. Carranza (“Sonia”) and Maria M. Carranza (“Maria”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this lawsuit against Defendants Geico Home Insurance (“Geico”), Homesite Home Insurance (“Homesite”), Tri-Tech Restoration (“Tri-Tech”), and Voge Inc. (“Voge”) on May 22, 2019. Plaintiffs dismissed the action with prejudice as to Geico and Homesite on December 17, 2019. The operative pleading appears to be the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) filed by Sonia on November 19, 2019.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom requests for admission (“RFAs”) are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party to whom the RFAs are directed waives any objection to the requests, including ones based on privilege. (CCP § 2033.280(a).) The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that (1) the party has subsequently served a code-compliant response and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Ibid.)

In addition to an automatic waiver of objections, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the RFAs be deemed admitted. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the responding party has served a substantially compliant response to the RFAs before the hearing. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) The court must impose monetary sanctions on the party, attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to RFAs necessitated a deemed-admitted motion. (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant Tri-Tech moves for an order deeming the truth of the matters in its RFA, Set One, admitted as against Plaintiff Sonia Carranza.[1] Tri-Tech also requests monetary sanctions against Sonia in the sum of $1,935.

Tri-Tech submits the following evidence. On October 7, 2019, Tri-Tech mail-served Sonia with RFA, Set One. (Bates Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. A.) Sonia was required to serve responses by November 11, 2019. (CCP §§ 1013(a), 2033.250(a).) To date, Tri-Tech has not received responses to these requests. (Bates Decl. ¶ 9.)

Based on this evidence, Tri-Tech has established that Sonia failed to serve timely responses to the RFAs. Consequently, Sonia has waived her right to interpose objections to these requests.

Sonia filed responses to these RFAs on January 14, 2020 to avoid an order deeming admitted the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the RFAs. Sonia’s efforts are unavailing for three reasons.

First, CCP section 2033.280(c) requires that the responding party serve the responses on the propounding party. Filing these responses with the Court is insufficient, and there is no proof of service indicating service of these responses upon Tri-Tech.

Second, CCP section 2033.280(c) requires the responding party to provide responses that are “in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” Section 2033.220 requires the responding party to answer in one of three ways: (1) admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, (2) deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue, or (3) specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. Sonia answered none of the 21 RFAs in a code-compliant fashion. Instead, Sonia responded to most RFAs with “Not True” instead of “Deny” and failed to answer the first RFA entirely.

Third, answers to RFAs must be given under oath. The Judicial Council Form DISC-020 states: “The answering party should use the following language at the end of the responses: [¶] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing answers are true and correct.” At the end of her responses, Sonia wrote: “The above ‘red ink’ answers are the truth nothing but truth under California State Laws.” This is an insufficient verification as it does not closely track the language endorsed by the Judicial Council.

Tri-Tech’s motion for a deemed-admitted order against Sonia is GRANTED.

Tri-Tech requests monetary sanctions of $1,935 against Sonia. Tri-Tech is entitled to monetary sanctions because Sonia’s failure to serve timely responses necessitated this motion. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) However, the amount requested is unreasonable. The Court grants Tri-Tech monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,185 ($375 x 3 hours + $60 filing fee).

CONCLUSION

Tri-Tech’s motion for an order deeming the truth of the matters in its RFA, Set One, admitted as against Plaintiff Sonia Carranza is GRANTED. Sonia is to pay Tri-Tech monetary sanctions of $1,185 within 30 days’ notice of this court order.


[1] As Tri-Tech notes, Plaintiff Maria Carranza did not file a new pleading within 30 days after the Court sustained Tri-Tech’s demurrer to the SAC. This means that the Court may dismiss Maria from this action. (CCP § 581(f)(2).) Ostensibly agreeing with this result, Plaintiffs filed a “Notice of Entry of Dismissal Form” on January 9, 2020 requesting Maria’s dismissal from this action. However, this dismissal was not effective without court approval. (CCP § 581(j).). The Court will grant Maria’s request for dismissal upon oral request at the hearing on this motion. (CCP § 581(b)(1).)

Case Number: 19STLC04873    Hearing Date: December 04, 2019    Dept: 32

sonia m. carranza & maria m. Carranza,

Plaintiffs,

v.

geico home insurance, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19STLC04873

Hearing Date: December 4, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Voge’s motions for an order deeming the truth of matters in its requests for admission admitted

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Sonia M. Carranza (“Sonia”) and Maria M. Carranza (“Maria”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this lawsuit against Defendants Geico Home Insurance (“Geico”), Homesite Home Insurance (“Homesite”), Tri-Tech Restoration (“Tri-Tech”), and Voge Inc. (“Voge”) on May 22, 2019. The Court sustained Tri-Tech’s demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) with leave to amend on November 6, 2019.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom requests for admission (“RFAs”) are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party to whom the RFAs are directed waives any objection to the requests, including ones based on privilege. (CCP § 2033.280(a).) The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that (1) the party has subsequently served a code-compliant response and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Ibid.)

In addition to an automatic waiver of objections, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the RFAs be deemed admitted. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the responding party has served a substantially compliant response to the RFAs before the hearing. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) The court must impose monetary sanctions on the party, attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to RFAs necessitated a deemed-admitted motion. (Ibid.)

ANALYSIS

Defendant Voge moves for an order deeming the truth of the matters in its RFA, Set One, admitted as against Plaintiffs. Voge also requests monetary sanctions against each Plaintiff in the sum of $1,810.

Voge submits the following evidence. On August 20, 2019, Voge mail-served Plaintiffs with RFA, Set One. (Sayre Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Plaintiffs were required to serve responses by September 24, 2019. (CCP §§ 1013(a), 2033.250(a).) To date, Plaintiffs have failed to serve any responses to these requests. (Sayre Decl. ¶ 5.)

Based on this uncontested evidence, Voge has established that Plaintiffs failed to serve timely responses to the RFAs. Plaintiffs have therefore waived any objections to the RFAs and entitled Voge to an order deeming the truth of the matters in its RFA, Set One, admitted.

Voge’s motions for a deemed-admitted order against Plaintiffs are GRANTED.

Voge requests $1,810 in monetary sanctions against each Plaintiff, claiming that its counsel incurred seven hours of work in connection with each motion. (Sayre Decl. ¶ 6.) This is unreasonable given the simplicity and duplication of the motions. Voge’s requests for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs is GRANTED in the total combined amount of $1,370 ($250 x 5 hours + $120 filing fee). Plaintiffs must pay these monetary sanctions within 30 days of notice of this court order.

Case Number: 19STLC04873    Hearing Date: November 06, 2019    Dept: 32

sonia m. carranza & maria m. Carranza,

Plaintiffs,

v.

geico home insurance, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19STLC04873

Hearing Date: November 6, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Tri-Tech’s demurrer to the

second amended complaint

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Sonia M. Carranza and Maria M. Carranza (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this lawsuit against Defendants Geico Home Insurance (“Geico”), Homesite Home Insurance (“Homesite”), Tri-Tech Restoration (“Tri-Tech”), and Voge Inc. (“Voge”) on May 22, 2019. The operative pleading is the “Second Amendment to Complaint” (“SAC”) filed on August 1, 2019. The SAC appears to assert causes of action for negligence and fraud arising from home renovation.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.) The court must treat as true all the complaint’s material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Id. at 732-33.) The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Id. at 733.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Tri-Tech’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(c).)

ANALYSIS

Tri-Tech demurs to each cause of action in the SAC on the grounds that each is uncertain and each fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Tri-Tech. The Court will only address Tri-Tech’s uncertainty argument because the SAC’s allegations are mostly inscrutable and preclude a reasonable evaluation of Tri-Tech’s sufficiency argument.

Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored. (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.) Such demurrers are strictly construed, even where a complaint is uncertain in some respects, because ambiguities can reasonably be clarified under modern rules of discovery. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Demurrers for uncertainty will almost certainly be overruled where: (1) they are directed to inconsequential matters; (2) the facts alleged in the complaint are presumptively within the knowledge of the demurring party or ascertainable by invoking discovery procedures; or (3) they are not dispositive of one or more causes of action. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶ 7:86.)

Still, uncertainty remains a viable ground for demurrer, particularly when the pleading’s “meaning cannot be comprehended at all.” (See 5 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (5th ed. 2019) Pleading § 974.) In this case, the SAC reads as a random assortment of contentions and procedural history. The few factual allegations that are present in the SAC do not adhere to any cognizable chronology and do not tell a clear narrative. Because the SAC is so unintelligible, the Court concludes that it fails to fulfill its essential duty of apprising Tri-Tech and the Court of the factual basis of Plaintiffs’ claims.

Moreover, as Tri-Tech notes, CRC Rule 2.112 requires that each separately stated cause of action in a complaint must state (1) its number, (2) its nature, (3) the party asserting it if more than one party is represented on the pleading, and (4) the party or parties to whom it is directed. “[F]ailure to comply with rule 2.112 presumably renders a complaint subject to … a special demurrer for uncertainty.” (Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 996, 1014.) The SAC has utterly failed to comply with this rule of court. The SAC apparently asserts two causes of action but has not numbered them, clearly identified their nature, identified who is asserting those causes of action, and identified to whom those causes of action are directed.

Plaintiffs need to drastically reorganize and edit their operative pleading. The new pleading must contain (1) a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language, and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader claims to be entitled. (CCP § 425.10(a).) The new pleading must also comply with CRC Rule 2.112. Plaintiffs should consider using the complaint forms provided by the Judicial Council which Plaintiffs used in commencing this action.

Tri-Tech’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ SAC is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.