Bryan v. Santa Maria Diesel Service, Inc
Case No: 19CV00386
Hearing Date: Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:30

Nature of Proceedings: Demurrer/Motion to Strike

On January 23, 2019, John T. Bryan filed a complaint for personal injury against Santa Maria Diesel Service, Inc., Mavredakis, Cranert Esq., Pollard, Maverdakis, Cranert, Esq. In the body of the complaint, he includes Zurich Insurance, who he states is represented by Maverdakis Cranert. The complaint alleges that plaintiff was injured while he was on the property of Santa Maria Diesel Service, Inc. when defendant’s forklift hit his diesel bus while he was in it. He seeks one million actual and one million punitive damages from Santa Maria Diesel Service Inc.

In addition, in what appears to be an unrelated incident, plaintiff states that he contacted Pollard, Mavredakis and Cranert, who were “supposed to be his defense attornies (sic) in the Zyprexa medication lawsuit.” Plaintiff also allegedly “contacted Jim Maverkakis Esq. personaly (sic) and informed him a conflict of interest exists as lawyers you cannot be defense lawyers in Case Number 14CV0297 of San Luis Obispo California and Plaintiff’s lawyers in the 8 billion dollar Zyprexa lawsuit.”

Zurich American Insurance demurs to the complaint based on uncertainty. In addition, it requests the court take judicial notice of San Luis Obispo Superior Court, Case Numbers CV13-0347 and 14CV-0297. No opposition to the demurrer or to the request for judicial notice were filed. The request for judicial notice is granted. (See Evid. C. § 452, subd (d).)

According to these documents, plaintiff filed a complaint for personal injury in the San Luis Obispo Superior Court on July 15, 2013, against Santa Maria Diesel Service, Inc. Pollard Mavredakis Cranert Crawford represented Santa Maria Diesel Service, Inc. The complaint was dismiss on March 21, 2014 for failure to amend. Plaintiff subsequently filed another complaint on June 4, 2014 against Santa Maria Diesel Service, Inc. It was dismissed on February 18, 2015 for failure to amend.

It is well settled that uncertain pleadings, defined as being “ambiguous and unintelligible,” which fail to provide defendants with sufficient notice of claims against them give rise to grounds for demurrer. (See CCP § 430.10(f).) Specifically, a demurrer for uncertainty may lie if the complaint is so confusing that the defendant cannot tell what it is supposed to reasonably respond to. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

The instant complaint is uncertain, unintelligible and unambiguous as to Zurich American Insurance, even under the most generous of interpretations. The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend within 15 days.

Appearances are required. CourtCall is authorized.