Wiedemann v. West Coast Electronics

• Decision Date: 03 November 1959
• Citation: 345 P.2d 356,175 Cal.App.2d 66
• Parties: Erna WIEDEMANN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WEST COAST ELECTRONICS, Defendant and Respondent. Belle Schwartz Fox, Defendant. Civ. 23738.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 356

345 P.2d 356

175 Cal.App.2d 66

Erna WIEDEMANN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WEST COAST ELECTRONICS, Defendant and Respondent Belle Schwartz Fox, Defendant.

Civ. 23738.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Nov. 3, 1959.

Erna Wiedemann, in pro. per.

Harned Pettus Hoose, Wayne I. McClaskey, David V. Kenyon, Beverly Hills, for respondent.

SHINN, Presiding Justice.

Action for damages against Belle Schwartz Fox and West Cost Electronics Co. The latter's demurrer to the amended complaint having been sustained without leave to amend, judgment of dismissal was entered and plaintiff appeals.

The amended complaint states the essentials of a cause of action for trespass against West Coast. Stripped of surplusage, redeundancies and evidentiary matter, it alleges as follows: May 10, 1957, at the request of defendant Fox, employees of West Coast installed an electronic sound surveillance device in the apartment occupied by plaintiff and her husband, William Wiedemann, who was employed as a pastry chef by a Beverly Hills hotel at a salary of $85 per week; entry to the apartment was gained forcibly, unlawfully and without the consent of the Wiedemanns; through conversations overheard by means of the device agents of West Coast learned where Wiedemann was employed and transmitted this information to Mrs. Fox; actuated by malice against the Wiedemanns because of an attack upon her late father contained in an unpublished book written by plaintiff, defendant Fox wrongfully caused Wiedemann to be discharged from his job at the hotel; May 27, 1957, the day of her husband's discharge, plaintiff smashed the sound device and the following day it exploded; unable to obtain other employment as a pastry chef in California, Wiedemann went to Colorado, where he obtained part-time employment as a baker, contracted sleeping sickness and returned to Los Angeles where he died September 3, 1957. It is also alleged that the acts of the defendants have caused plaintiff 'loss, suffering and damage.' The complaint seeks recovery of $10,000 damages, representing one-half the wages Wiedemann would have earned at the hotel over a five year period had he not been discharged from his job.

As we have said, the amended complaint alleges the substance of a cause of action for trespass. It is nevertheless contended by respondent that the demurrer was properly sustained and the action dismissed because the complaint is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible and because it does not comply with the statutory rule that the facts constituting the cause of action must be stated in ordinary and concise language. Code Civ.Proc. § 426, subd. 2. We are unable to agree with either contention.

Respondent demurred both on general and special grounds and although the court sustained the demurrer, the record does not disclose the ground or grounds of the ruling. It is settled that when a complaint is sufficient as against a general demurrer, it is error to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend because of defects in the form of pleading. Maguire v. Hibernia S. & L. Soc., 23 Cal.2d 719, 146 P.2d 673, 151 A.L.R. 1062; Columbia Pictures Corp. v. DeToth, 26 Cal.2d 753, 161 P.2d 217, 162...