The demurrer of Defendant CitiStaff Solutions, Inc. (“CitiStaff”)to Plaintiff Cynthia Sandoval’s Complaint is overruled.

The special demurrer for uncertainty as to the first cause of action (breach of contract) is overruled.  ( Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f)). “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.)  Errors and confusion created by “the inept pleader” are to be forgiven if the pleading contains sufficient facts entitling plaintiff to relief.  (Saunders v. Cariss (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 905, 908.)  A party attacking a pleading on “uncertainty” grounds must specify how and why the pleading is uncertain, and where that uncertainty can be found in the challenged pleading.  (Fenton v. Groveland Community Services Dept. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 797, 809, disapproved on other grounds in Katzberg v. Regents of the University of California (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300.)  Here, Plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of contract is not so unintelligible that Defendant cannot reasonably respond.  Any ambiguities can be clarified through discovery.  (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135; Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 616.)

The general demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as to the first cause of action is also overruled.  “To survive a [general] 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.)  The basic elements of a breach of contract claim are: “(1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach.” (Miles v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 394, 402.)

Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts in her Complaint to establish the existence of a contract.  She attached the written offer letter from Defendant which included the terms of her compensation, including her commission. (Complaint, at ¶ 19 & Exh. A.)  Plaintiff alleges that she agreed to the offer. (Complaint, at ¶ 20.)  She further alleges the remaining elements of a breach of contract claim, including that Plaintiff performed her duties under the contract (Complaint, at ¶ 20), that Defendant breached the contract by failing to pay the commissions due under the agreement (Complaint, at ¶ 21), and that Plaintiff was damaged as a result (Complaint, at ¶ 22).  Accordingly, the demurrer as to the first cause of action is overruled.

Defendant CitiStaff is ordered to answer the Complaint within 15 days of the notice of ruling and serve the answer pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.