LAWZILLA NOTICE TO FRANCINE STEVENS AND DWAYNE SCOTT HARRIS:

You may be charged if someone else on your behalf accesses this website.

Case Name: Francine Stevens, et al. v. Bernice MacSwain
Case No.: 17-CV-316395

This lawsuit appears to be a landlord tenant dispute between plaintiffs Francine Stevens and Scott Harris (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and defendant Bernice MacSwain (“Defendant”). The complaint is not a model of clarity. It is two pages in length and on the Judicial Council of California form for contract disputes. Plaintiffs indicate they assert causes of action against Defendant for breach of contract and “Breach of habitability C.C.P. sec. 1941.1, & (retaliatory) 1942.5 (a) (2) & (c)- (a), (g) etc.” (Compl. at p. 2.) Although Plaintiffs indicate there are forms for these causes of action attached to the complaint, nothing is attached. Plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of $76,399.25, “special damages” of $5,000, and statutory penalties. (Compl. at p. 2.) Plaintiffs also request “[o]ther damages :landlord’s negligence, property inhabitable : damages for Emotional Distress, pain and suffering Liability for actual and ‘special damages’: $5000.” (Compl. at p. 2.)

Defendant demurs to the first cause of action and “other causes of action” on the ground of uncertainty and failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. In support of the demurrer, Defendant argues “the complaint taken as a whole fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action and is uncertain as to material factual allegations.” (Mem. of Pts. & Auth. at p. 2:18-19.) The Court treats the demurrer as being to the complaint as a whole because Defendant challenges the first and “other causes of action,” the arguments in support of the demurrer are directed to the complaint as a whole, the exact number of causes of action asserted is unclear, and Plaintiffs neglected to include the attachments for each cause of action.

A party may demur on the ground of uncertainty to challenge a pleading as uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) “[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Reg. Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

A demurrer on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action tests the legal sufficiency of the pleading. (Linear Technology Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 115, 122.) For purposes of a demurrer, a court assumes the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading, but not the truth of legal conclusions, to determine whether a cause of action has been stated under any legal theory. (Ibid.) “If the plaintiff fail[s] to plead [ ] any essential element of a particular cause of action” the demurrer is sustainable. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs’ complaint contains legal terminology such as “breach of habitability” and references to various statutes. (Compl. at p. 2.) Although Plaintiffs state “property inhabitable” in the list of damages they seek, they do not otherwise allege facts about the nature of the dispute between them and Defendant. Plaintiffs checked a box indicating they attached forms for each cause of action to their complaint, but there are in fact no such attachments. The complaint is devoid of factual allegations. Consequently, Plaintiffs do not allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any theory, and the disjointed statutory references and legal phrases in the complaint make it otherwise unintelligible.

Plaintiffs do not advance any points in their opposition to support a contrary conclusion. Their opposition, like the complaint, is not a model of clarity, and they do not clearly identify any legal authority or allegations in the complaint to support the conclusion that a cause of action has been stated. Instead, Plaintiffs refer to another document in the Court’s file identified as an “affidavit” and “notice to show cause.” (See Opp. at p. 3:28; see also Not. to Show Cause at p. 1.) This document was separately stapled, filed, and date stamped. Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not reference this document or incorporate it by reference in the complaint. Thus, the document is not part and parcel of the pleading under review, and the Court does not consider its contents for purposes of evaluating the demurrer. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a) [materials considered for purposes of a demurrer].) The demurrer to the complaint on the grounds of uncertainty and failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is therefore sustainable.

If Plaintiffs intend to use a form pleading to assert a cause of action for breach of contract, they must attach the form for that cause of action (see Judicial Council of California Form No. PLD-C-001(1)) to their complaint and allege therein the essential elements of a cause of action for breach of contract, which are: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) Plaintiffs’ performance or excuse for failure to perform; (3) Defendant’s breach of the contract; and (4) the damages Plaintiffs incurred as a result thereof. (See Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1031.)

As for Plaintiffs’ other cause of action, the Court notes breach of the implied warranty of habitability is typically raised as a defense in an unlawful detainer action. (See Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1297.) Nevertheless, courts have recognized that “a tenant may bring suit against the landlord for damages resulting from such breach.” (Ibid.) “The elements of such an affirmative claim are the existence of a material defective condition affecting the premises’ habitability, notice to the landlord of the condition within a reasonable time after the tenant’s discovery of the condition, the landlord was given a reasonable time to correct the deficiency, and resulting damages.” (Ibid.) If Plaintiffs intend to assert such an affirmative claim, they must plead facts to support each of these essential element.

The Court advises Plaintiffs, for future reference, that their opposition does not comply with the formatting requirements in the California Rules of Court; it is incredibly difficult to read. Any papers filed with the Court “must be prepared using a font size not smaller than 12 points.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.104.) Furthermore, “[t]he lines on each page must be one and one-half spaced or double spaced and numbered consecutively.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.108(1).) Plaintiffs use what appears to be an 8 or 10 point font. This is too small. Furthermore, although there is spacing between each line of text, the lines are not consecutively numbered because the font size renders each line of text far smaller and closer together than the line numbers in the margin.

Although Plaintiffs are representing themselves, the Court expects them to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court. “[Self-represented] litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.” (Kobayashi v. Super. Ct. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.) “To say otherwise would be to give [self-represented] litigants (and particularly vexatious litigants representing themselves) an unfair advantage over parties represented by attorneys [ ].” (Ibid.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs must comply with these formatting requirements when filing any document with the Court so that all documents in the file can be clearly read and referenced.

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer to the complaint on the ground of uncertainty and failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is SUSTAINED with 10 days’ leave to amend.

Lawzilla Additional Information: This page is no longer eligible to participate in the Own the Page program.