Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 20STCV28819, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV28819    Hearing Date: December 18, 2023    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  Demurrer of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Alliance Building Solutions to Cross-Complaint.

The demurrer is sustained, with 30 days’ leave to amend.

On 12/4/20, SANTA CLARITA ELECTRICAL, INC. (“Plaintiff” or “Cross-Defendant”) filed a First Amended Complaint against ALLIANCE BUILDING SOLUTIONS (“Defendant” or “Cross-Complainant”), alleging that defendants refused to turn over to Plaintiff money due and owing as payment for work done installing equipment for William S. Hart Union High School District, and Inglewood Unified School District. 

On 6/22/23, Cross-Complainant filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant, alleging breaches of subcontract agreements to provide monitoring and management systems and LED lighting at the two schools alleged in the Complaint because Cross-Defendant refused to complete work as agreed, and failed to remediate non-conforming, deficient, and defective work.

Cross-Defendant demurs to the two breach of contract claims in the Cross-Complaint and Cross-Complainant opposes the demurrer.

Complainants alleging breach of contract are not required to attach the contract, or to plead terms verbatim.  Miles v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 394, 402.  “In an action based on a written contract, the plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language.”  Ochs v. PacifiCare of Cal. (2004) 115 Cal. App. 4th 782, 795.  Accord  Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198-99.

General allegations stating that defendants violated a contract are insufficient, and instead pleaders must state facts showing a breach.  Levy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 1, 5-6.  "[A] pleader must state with certainty the facts constituting a breach of contract."  Melican v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 168, 174. 

Here, the allegations in the Cross-Complaint are too uncertain regarding the effects of the contract language and the facts regarding breaches of such language. The subcontract agreements are barely identified as being for monitoring and management systems and LED lighting, and the breaches are vaguely indicated as failing to complete, and to remediate, non-conforming, deficient, and defective work.  The Cross-Complaint does not contain any allegations about what the contracts provided for in regard to completion and quality of the work that Cross-Complainant alleges Cross-Defendant did not satisfy. Nor does it contain any information about the nature of the alleged breaches.

While the Court finds the Cross-Complaint needs more detail, it agrees with Cross-Complainant that it does not need to allege breach dates. The alleged date of breaches is not an element of contract breach.  See, e.g., Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. N. Y. Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178 (addressing the claim elements). 

The Court therefore allows leave to amend to fairly and certainly apprise Cross-Defendant of the legal effect of the contracts and the claimed breaches.