Can a plaintiff plead a redundant cause of action?

and superfluous. (Cf. Bernard v. Foley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 794, 810-811 [noting that interpretation of statutory provisions that would render other provisions "surplusage or redundant is to be avoided"].) It strains credulity to credit plaintiff's assertion that she intended to plead redundant causes of action.

Further, paragraph 123 alleges that "the decedent" incurred general damages arising from the survival claim alleged in the third cause of action, demonstrating that plaintiff knew how toand dididentify the particular plaintiff damaged by the cause of action at issue. In light of this, the most logical and reasonable interpretation of the absence of any damage allegation concerning decedent in the second cause of action is that plaintiff did not in fact intend to include the decedent's estate as a plaintiff for the second cause of action. (Cf. People v. Arriaga (2014) 58 Cal.4th 950, 960 ["It is a settled statutory interpretation that if a statute contains a provision regarding one subject, that provision's omission in the same or another statute regarding a related subject is evidence of a different legislative intent"].)

Page 16