Case Name: Eugene Breckenridge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Case No.: 18CV335957

I. Background

This lawsuit appears to arise from a collision in which plaintiff Eugene Breckenridge (“Plaintiff”) was struck by a car while riding his motorcycle on Highway 101 near San Antonio Road. Although not especially clear, it appears the driver that struck him was nonparty Thukalan Verghese who is insured by defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”). In a letter seemingly prepared for State Farm, which is attached to the form complaint, Plaintiff states he seeks $21,925.96 to compensate him for the losses he incurred as a result of the collision. Plaintiff does not identify what causes of action he is asserting against State Farm in section ten of his form complaint or anywhere else in the pleading. Additionally, he does not attach the required form for each cause of action asserted. (See, e.g., Judicial Council of California Form No. PLD-PI-001(1).) He does not otherwise identify the conduct by State Farm that constitutes the basis for his complaint against it.

Currently before the Court is State Farm’s demurrer to and motion to strike the complaint.

II. Preliminary Procedural Matters

As a preliminary matter, it is necessary to clarify whether both matters before the Court are opposed. Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Opposition of Motion to Strike” (Opp. at p. 1) and did not separately file any opposition to the demurrer. Despite this denomination, Plaintiff’s opposition addresses points raised by State Farm in support of both the demurrer and motion to strike. Accordingly, the Court treats the opposition as directed to both the demurrer and motion to strike and considers whether any of the points therein justify overruling the demurrer or denying the motion.

Next, Plaintiff appears to be presenting evidence with his opposition, and State Farm presents evidence along with its reply. For the purpose of a demurrer and motion to strike, a court may only consider the allegations on the face of the pleading and matters subject to judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, subd. (a), 437, subd. (a).) A court evaluates the legal sufficiency of the pleading and not whether the plaintiff can prove his or her claim. (Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1397.) Accordingly, the evidence presented by the parties is both improper and immaterial to the Court’s analysis. This evidence will not be considered.

III. Demurrer

State Farm demurs to the complaint on the following grounds: (1) there is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (2) the pleading is uncertain; (3) the pleading fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (d)–(f).)

A. Failure to State Sufficient Facts

In general, “a complaint must contain ‘[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.’” (Davaloo v. State Farm Insurance Co. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 409, 415, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a)(1).) “This fact-pleading requirement obligates the plaintiff to allege ultimate facts that as a whole apprise[ ] the adversary of the factual basis of the claim.” (Davaloo, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 415 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) A defendant may demur to a pleading on the ground it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer on that statutory ground tests whether the plaintiff alleges each ultimate fact essential to the cause of action asserted. (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 873.)

State Farm argues Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for negligence and lacks standing to assert a claim against it. State Farm’s arguments are misguided as Plaintiff does not indicate anywhere in the pleading what type of claim he intended to assert against it. With that said, in presenting these arguments, State Farm does identify the more significant problem with the complaint, particularly that no facts are alleged.

Page three of the form complaint contains a space for a plaintiff to indicate the causes of action he or she is asserting and instructs that “each complaint must have one or more causes of action attached.” Plaintiff does not indicate in this portion of the form complaint what cause of action he is asserting and fails to attach any corresponding form containing a statement of the facts upon which his claim is based. (See, e.g., Judicial Council of California Form No. PLD-PI-001(1).) Also, he does not attach any other document setting forth allegations to support his claim. Although he does attach documentary evidence to his complaint, he does not state and it is not otherwise obvious that these documents are part of the statement of the factual basis for his claim against State Farm. Because there simply are no factual allegations in the complaint, the demurrer on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is sustainable. To be sure, none of the points advanced by Plaintiff in opposition support a contrary conclusion.

“In ruling on a demurrer, the court must grant the plaintiff leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 971 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) “If the plaintiff has not had an opportunity to amend the complaint in response to the demurrer, leave to amend is liberally allowed as a matter of fairness, unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment.” (Ibid. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to amend the complaint in response to the demurrer. Furthermore, in the absence of facts and indicia of the legal theory upon which Plaintiff is relying, there is no basis for concluding the complaint is incapable of amendment. Accordingly, the demurrer on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend after service of the signed order.

B. Uncertainty

A demurrer on the ground of uncertainty tests whether a pleading is ambiguous, uncertain, or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) A demurrer on the ground of uncertainty “is not intended to reach the failure to incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading, but is directed at the uncertainty existing in the allegations actually made.” (Butler v. Sequeira (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 143, 145–46.) State Farm does not demonstrate there are ambiguities or uncertainties in the allegations actually pleaded. Rather, its position is that Plaintiff simply has not alleged facts to support his claim. Accordingly, State Farm does not identify a proper basis for sustaining the demurrer on the ground of uncertainty, which is therefore OVERRULED.

C. Defect or Misjoinder of Parties

A party may demur on the ground there is a defect or misjoinder of parties if an indispensable party is absent from the litigation. (Majd v. Bank of America, N.A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1308–09, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 389; see also Simonelli v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 480, 484–85.) State Farm does not actually address its demurrer on the ground there is a defect or misjoinder of parties. To the extent State Farm intended to argue that it should not be joined in this action because no claim is stated against it, its argument is misguided. The fact that no claim is stated against State Farm does not support the conclusion that there is a defect or misjoinder of parties. Rather, it supports the conclusion that the demurrer should be sustained on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Accordingly, State Farm’s invocation of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (d) is inapt. Its demurrer on the ground there is a defect or misjoinder of parties is, therefore, OVERRULED.

IV. Motion to Strike

State Farm moves to strike the portion of Plaintiff’s form complaint in which he checked a box indicating he seeks punitive damages. (Compl. at p. 3, § 14(a).)

A party may move to strike improper allegations in a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435, subd. (b)(1), 436, subd. (a).) If a claim for punitive damages is not properly pleaded, it may be stricken. (Grieves v. Super. Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164.) In order to plead a claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the defendant was guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud and the ultimate facts underlying such allegations. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a); Clauson v. Super. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

Plaintiff did not attach Judicial Council of California Form No. PLD-PI-001(6) and set forth the facts supporting his claim for punitive damages in the space provided on that form. Additionally, he does not otherwise allege facts showing State Farm was guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. As explained above, there are no allegations in the complaint. Thus, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to plead a claim for punitive damages.

Based on the foregoing, State Farm’s motion to strike the request for punitive damages in section 14(a) of the form complaint is GRANTED with 20 days’ leave to amend after service of the signed order.

The Court will prepare the order.