STEINER vs TURNER, et al.

For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 02/06/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54

some relief . . ., we are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) The sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action, not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)

Uncertainty

The demurrer for uncertainty is OVERRULED. The allegations are not so uncertain that Defendants cannot frame a response. Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are only granted where the complaint is so muddled that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. The favored approach is to clarify theories in the complaint through discovery. (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695; see also Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Fraud

The elements of fraud are (1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity (or “scienter”); (3) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Charney v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 184, citing Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631.) The pleading of a fraud claim requires specificity. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.) To state a misrepresentation claim, Plaintiff must allege specific facts demonstrating “who, what, where, when and how.” (Lazar, supra, 12 Cal.4th at 645.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges:

“Defendants performed the acts heroin [sic] alleged with the intention to deceive and defraud Plaintiff. Defendants employed the following devices to conceal from the Plaintiff the fact that; Defendants failed to conduct proper discovery relating to the employment; Failed to file an opposition or other pleadings; Failed to assert and advance duties related to the employment, and failed the obligation of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Failed to keep the Plaintiff informed about significant developments related to the employment, despite Plaintiff’s numerous requests. Defendants performed these acts with the intent to induce reliance by the Plaintiff in the continuing fidelity of Defendants as her attorney; Defendants were not truthful to the Court and to the Plaintiff during their employment.” (Complaint ¶ 28.)

Defendants contend the foregoing allegations do not constitute fraud and Plaintiff is attempting to frame her alleged breach of fiduciary duties and negligence as fraud.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 02/06/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54

The Court agrees the foregoing allegations are not pled with the requisite specificity. As the pleading stands, it is unclear what misrepresentations were made to Plaintiff, when they were made, by whom they were made, or whether Defendants had knowledge of falsity at the time they were made. Plaintiff simply alleges Defendants failed to take certain actions with respect to the underlying action. Although Plaintiff has filed an opposition, it does not address the merits of any of Defendants’ arguments and instead only sets forth various legal authorities without any application of said authorities to the facts.

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED, but with leave to amend because this is the first challenge to the pleading.

IIED

The established elements of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress are that a plaintiff must identify facts demonstrating that “(1) the defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, severe emotional distress to the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff actually suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) the outrageous conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the emotional distress.” (Ross v. Creel Printing & Publ’g Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 736, 744-45.) The conduct at issue “must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized society.” (Trerice v. Blue Cross of California (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 878, 883.)

In support of her claim for IIED, Plaintiff alleges the following:

“33. Defendant BRIAN H. TURNER by acting negligently and by intentionally and maliciously breaching its fiduciary duty inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff. Defendant’s extreme, disgraceful, wanton, and intentional malicious actions caused mental distress to the Plaintiff.

34. Defendant [sic] intentional and outrageous misconduct caused mental distress to the Plaintiff. Said conduct was intentional and malicious and/or intentional and reckless and so outrageous as to be inconsonant with and intolerable causing the Plaintiff to suffer mental anguish and emotional and physical distress.

35. Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous, wanton and malicious and coercive. Their conduct involved fraud, intentional and willful fiduciary breach causing emotional and mental injury. Defendants intentionally and recklessly

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 02/06/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54

inflicted severe emotional distress, that was certain or substantially certain that such distress would result from their conduct. Defendants’ intentional and outrageous misconduct supported an award of damages for emotional distress in the Plaintiff's legal malpractice action against the Defendants.” (Complaint ¶¶ 33- 35.)

Defendants assert the foregoing conclusory allegations are insufficient and do not amount to extreme and outrageous conduct. The Court agrees and Plaintiff’s opposition does not address the arguments and, as noted above, simply sets forth the legal standard on a demurrer and then concludes, without any explanation, that she has sufficiently plead her “negligence infliction of emotional distress” claim.

Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED, but with leave to amend because this is the first challenge to the pleading.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants’ request for judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Declaration of Richard A. Sullivan for 30-Day Extension is unopposed and granted. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the Court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590 [judicial notice of findings of fact does not mean that those findings of fact are true]; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121 [“[W]hile the existence of any document in a court file may be judicially noticed, the truth of the matters asserted in those documents, including the factual findings of the judge who was sitting as the trier of fact, is not entitled to notice.”].)

Conclusion

Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED, but with leave to amend.

Plaintiff may file and serve a First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) on or before February 20, 2025. Defendants may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the 1AC, or 35 days if served by mail.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 02/06/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.