Craig M. Goodman, dba CM Goodman Architects, Inc. v. Charles B. Butler

Case Number

24CV03667

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 11/20/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Demurrer of Defendant Charles B. Butler to Plaintiff Craig M. Goodman, dba CM Goodman Architects, Inc’s Complaint

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Craig M. Goodman dba CM Goodman Architects, Inc.: Self Represented                                  

For Defendant Charles B. Butler: Richard A. Nyznyk          

RULING

This matter is on the Court 8:30am Case Management Calendar and the 10am Law & Motion Calendar. Both matters will be called at 10 am. No appearances at the 8:30am calendar is required.

Law and Motion Ruling. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file and serve his first amended complaint no later than December 18, 2024.

Case Management Conference Ruling. The CMC set for today is continued to 2/19/25 at 8:30am.

Background

This action commenced on July 2, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by Craig M. Goodman dba CM Goodman Architects, Inc. (“Goodman”) against Defendant Charles B. Butler (“Butler”). The complaint is a judicial council form complaint for breach of contract. However, the attachments to the complaint appear to add an additional cause of action for fraud. The complaint contains several attachments, some of which are of such poor quality that they are illegible.

Butler demurs to the complaint on the grounds that it is “completely and wholly ambiguous and unintelligible and thereby fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Notice of Demurrer, p. 1, ll. 23-25.)

Goodman has not filed an opposition or otherwise responded to the demurrer.

Analysis

“(a) A complaint or cross-complaint shall contain both of the following:

“(1) A statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.

“(2) A demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader claims to be entitled. If the recovery of money or damages is demanded, the amount demanded shall be stated.

“(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), where an action is brought to recover actual or punitive damages for personal injury or wrongful death, the amount demanded shall not be stated, but the complaint shall comply with Section 422.30 and, in a limited civil case, with subdivision (b) of Section 70613 of the Government Code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10.)

Butler demurs to Goodman’s complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f), which allow demurrers on the grounds that: “(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action;” and “(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “ ‘uncertain’ ” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.”

“When any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the Court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) “Our consideration of the facts alleged includes ‘those evidentiary facts found in recitals of exhibits attached to [the] complaint.’ [Citation.]” (Alexander v. Exxon Mobil (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1250.)

“[A] Court must treat a demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, it does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 341, 358, citing Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

“To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the Plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)

“Demurrers for uncertainty . . . are disfavored. . . . A demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled when the facts as to which the complaint is uncertain are presumptively within the Defendant’s knowledge.” (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.)

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

This case presents a situation in which the complaint is wholly uncertain because the allegations are incomprehensible. The form complaint has missing information and seems to have random boxes checked that do not pertain to any ascertainable facts. There are inclusions of seemingly random names and entities that are not tied to any acts or omissions. Some of the attachments, as noted above, are illegible and they appear to have no relevance to the present action.

The Court has read and re-read the complaint and attachments. The complaint is simply unintelligible and does not adequately apprise Butler of any claims against him. To the extent that it is a breach of contract action, as indicated by the complaint used, it does not identify a contract that was allegedly breached or any of the elements of a breach of contract cause of action. To the extent it is a fraud action, as indicated by an attachment to the complaint, it does not set forth any of the elements of fraud. As such, the demurrer will be sustained pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f).

Further, though not argued by Butler, it is unclear if Goodman is proceeding in an individual capacity or in the capacity of his business. “[U]nder a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before Courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney.  It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before Courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) If Goodman is proceeding on behalf of his business, which appears to be a corporation, the business must be represented by a licensed attorney.

“[F]or an original complaint, regardless whether the Plaintiff has requested leave to amend, it has long been the rule that a trial Court’s denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the complaint ‘shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment.’ [citations]” (Eghtesad v. State Farm General Insurance Company (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 406, 411.)

Goodman will be given leave to amend.