Christopher Blades vs Fei-Fang Lee

Case Number

24CV05974

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 06/23/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Demurrer

Tentative Ruling

Christopher Blades vs. Frank Lee

Case No. 24CV05974

           

Hearing Date: June 23, 2025 

HEARING:              Demurrer To Complaint

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Christopher Blades: Self Represented

For Defendant Fei-Fang Lee: Self Represented

TENTATIVE RULING:

For all reasons discussed herein, the demurrer of defendant to plaintiff’s complaint is overruled. On or before July 7, 2025, defendant shall file and serve an answer to plaintiff’s complaint.

Background:

On October 24, 2024, plaintiff Christopher Blades filed a complaint against defendant Frank Lee (Lee), alleging three causes of action for general negligence, intentional tort, and premises liability.

On December 2, 2024, without any response having been filed to the complaint, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (the FAC) against Lee, alleging the same three causes of action. As alleged or effectively alleged in the FAC, which is the operative pleading:

Plaintiff was paying monthly rent of $2,350 for premises located at 505 Red Rose Lane, Apt. 5, in Santa Barbara, California (the rental unit), when the local economy shifted such that the rental unit was worth $3,500 per month. (FAC, ¶¶ GN-1 & Prem.L-1 [referring to the premises at issue, where plaintiff sustained damages, as the “rental unit”].) Lee listed the rental unit for $3,500 per month on Craigslist and intentionally evicted plaintiff and his family due to the change in the rental economy, knowing that Lee could get $1,200 more per month which Lee did. (FAC, ¶ IT-1.) Lee’s conduct caused impacts to plaintiff and his family including the loss of a dwelling, the loss of plaintiff’s minor son’s ability to attend a local elementary school, and loss of wages due to not being able to work in the area. (Ibid.)

In addition, plaintiff and his family suffered injuries due to black mold, cockroaches, and termites present at the rental unit. (FAC, ¶¶ GN-1 & Prem.L-1.) Lee was notified about the presence of these conditions and did not respond to requests to fix the problems, including by refusing to authorize a black mold inspection. (Ibid. & ¶ IT-1.) Lee also altered the lease agreement, entered the rental unit where gold and other valuables went missing, and parked a car in one of the parking spots that plaintiff had occupied during his tenancy which resulted in plaintiff’s car being towed from the street. (FAC, ¶¶ GN-1 & IT-1.)

After plaintiff was evicted from the rental unit on October 25, 2022, Lee would not let plaintiff and his family enter the rental unit to recover life-sustaining medical equipment for plaintiff’s partner, caused Lee’s manager to harass plaintiff and his family, threatened plaintiff with physical harm in front of plaintiff’s son who was 10 years of age at the time, turned off the electricity, and placed a lock on the switch when Lee knew that plaintiff’s partner, who also resided at the premises, required electricity for dialysis. (FAC, ¶ IT-1.)

Plaintiff asserts in the FAC, a claim for additional exemplary damages against Lee based on conduct described in an “Exemplary Damages Attachment” to the FAC and which plaintiff contends demonstrates malice, fraud, and oppression by Lee. (FAC  at pdf p. 7, ¶¶ EX-1-2.)

On March 14, 2025, Lee, who asserts that he was erroneously sued as Frank Lee instead of Fei-Fang Lee, filed a demurrer on the grounds that the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The demurrer is opposed by plaintiff.

Analysis:

A demurring party must, at least 5 days before the date a responsive pleading is due and prior to filing the demurrer, “meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) The demurring party must also file and serve with the demurrer a declaration stating “[t]he means by which the demurring party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer” or “[t]hat the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the demurring party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3)(A)-(B).)

The court has no record showing that Lee filed the meet and confer declaration required under subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. In addition, wholly absent from the demurrer is any information or evidence showing that Lee engaged in any meet and confer process with plaintiff prior to filing the demurrer, as required by subdivision (a)(1) and (2) of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41.

Though the court will consider the merits of Lee’s demurrer notwithstanding the deficiencies noted above, Lee is reminded of his obligation to comply with procedural rules and requirements. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985 [“the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation”].)

“A demurrer challenges the validity of the causes of action ‘and places at issue the legal merits of the action on assumed facts.’ [Citation.]” (David M. v. Beverly Hospital (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1276.) “ ‘We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638.) “If the complaint states a cause of action under any theory, regardless of the title under which the factual basis for relief is stated, that aspect of the complaint is good against a demurrer.” (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38.)

In the demurrer, Lee contends that in an earlier unlawful detainer case involving the same parties, plaintiff was required to vacate the rental unit, which is owned by Lee, on September 28, 2022. (Demurrer at p. 3.) Lee contends that the claims alleged in the FAC are barred by the statute of limitations because plaintiff alleges that he sustained damages on October 25, 2022, after plaintiff was removed from the rental unit pursuant to the earlier case. For these reasons, Lee argues, the FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Though the factual and legal basis for the statute of limitations issue raised in Lee’s demurrer is not entirely clear, Lee appears to challenge the truth of the allegations set forth in the FAC with respect to the date plaintiff purportedly sustained damages due to Lee’s alleged conduct or plaintiff’s removal from the rental unit. As further discussed above, “all material facts pleaded in the complaint and those which arise by reasonable implication ... are deemed admitted by the demurring party.” (Orange Unified School Dist. v. Rancho Santiago Community College Dist. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 750, 757.) Therefore, the date on which plaintiff sustained damages based on the events further detailed above constitutes a material fact which is, for present purposes, deemed admitted by Lee.

Moreover, “[a] demurrer is simply not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts.” (Ramsden v. Western Union (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 873, 879 (Ramsden).) When considering the demurrer, the court must accept as true the facts alleged by plaintiff in the FAC without considering plaintiff’s ability to prove these facts. (ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 825, 833; People ex rel. Dept. of Conservation v. Triplett (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 233, 255.) For these and all further reasons discussed above, Lee has failed to show why the FAC is barred based on a statute of limitations or otherwise.

Lee further contends that plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to support an award of exemplary damages.

Noted above, plaintiff alleges a claim for “exemplary” damages based on purported conduct by Lee which plaintiff contends constitutes malice, fraud, or oppression. Plaintiff’s claim for exemplary damages “is not really a distinct cause of action.” (Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1045.) Further, “a demurrer cannot rightfully be sustained to ... a particular type of damage or remedy.” (Id. at p. 1047; see also Ramsden, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 883 [“the fact that a plaintiff has requested exemplary damages to which he may not be entitled does not affect the sufficiency of his complaint”].) For these reasons, Lee’s demurrer to plaintiff’s claim for exemplary damages cannot be sustained.

For all reasons further discussed above, Lee has failed to show why the FAC does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Lee. Therefore, the court will overrule the demurrer, and require Lee to file and serve an answer to the FAC.

Additional procedural issues:

California Rules of Court, rule 2.100 et seq., “prescribe the form and format of papers to be filed in the trial courts.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.100(b).) Rule 2.108 requires that the lines of each page of a paper filed with the court be “numbered consecutively”, and that the line numbers “be placed at the left margin and separated from the text by a vertical column of space at least ¹/₅ inch wide or a single or double vertical line.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.108(1) & (4).)

The papers submitted by the parties in support of and in opposition to the demurrer do not include consecutive line numbers. The failure to include consecutive line numbers as required by court rules makes it difficult for the court to refer or cite to matters appearing within the parties’ papers. The parties are expected to note these deficiencies and to comply with court rules in the future.