BENAIAH DISMUKE VS GRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH OF THE VALLEY

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******1149    Hearing Date: June 29, 2020    Dept: 24

Defendant Grace Community Church of the Valley’s demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED. Defendant’s motion to strike is moot.

On November 15, 2019, Plaintiff Benaiah Dismuke (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant complaint against Defendant Grace Community Church of the Valley (“Defendant”). The Complaint contains vague allegations regarding an unknown “power or energy” that causes various maladies.

On January 9, 2020, Defendant demurred to the Complaint on uncertainty grounds and a motion to strike punitive damages. No opposition was filed. On June 19, 2020, Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition.

Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (CCP ;; 430.30, 430.70.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A “demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [internal citations omitted].)

A special demurrer for uncertainty, CCP section 430.10(f), is disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him/her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Moreover, even if the pleading is somewhat vague, “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.)

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer or motion to strike, the moving party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading to attempt to reach an agreement that would resolve the objections to the pleading. (CCP ;; 430.41, 435.5.) Counsel’s declaration satisfies the meet and confer requirement. (Angelo Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.)

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of various court documents. (See RJN Exs. 1-3.) This request is GRANTED.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any cause of action and is uncertain. The factual allegations comprise of vague statements concerning a “force” or “power or energy.” There are allegations concerning how the government uses this force as a part of a religion. There are further allegations on how this force causes Plaintiff and others to experience physical/psychological harm. Even if these allegations are to be believed, Plaintiff has not explained how Defendant relates to this force or power. Thus, even if the Court were to assume the truth of the allegations, Plaintiff has not stated any facts against this Defendant. This renders the complaint uncertain, to say the least.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The motion to strike is moot.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.