Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV11290, Date: 2024-09-04 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 23STCV11290    Hearing Date: September 4, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff John Schlaff (Schlaff) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendants Martha Florence Heebner, aka Marty Stevens-Heebner, Half the Sky Design LLC, dba Clear Home Solutions, and Does 1 through 100 (collectively, Defendants) alleging (1) Civil Extortion, (2) Tortious Violation of Business & Professions Code § 6043.5(b), (3) Fraud, (4) Defamation, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (6) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, (7) Gross Negligence, (8) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, (9) Intentional Interference with Contract, and (10) Violations of the Unfair Business Practices Act.

The FAC alleges that Defendant Heebner threatened to make a complaint against Schlaff to the State Bar unless he sign a release of funds that his client instructed him not to sign, and that Heebner submitted said bar complaint which falsely alleged that Schlaff had committed theft. (FAC ¶¶ 13-14.) Schlaff alleges that in doing so, Heebner impeded Schlaff’s representation of his client, and interfered with his prospective economic advantage. (FAC ¶ 13.) He further alleges that Heebner acted out of animus and in deliberate bad faith. (FAC ¶ 13.)  

B. Motions Before the Court

On April 16, 2024, Defendants demurred to the second through tenth causes of action. Defendants demur to the second through fifth and seventh through tenth causes of action on the grounds that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and are uncertain under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 subdivisions (e) and (f). Defendants demur to the sixth cause of action on the grounds 1) that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 subdivision (e) and 2) that California does not recognize a distinct cause of action for gross negligence. On the same day, Defendants also moved to strike certain portions of the FAC.

On July 16, 2024, Schlaff opposed the demurrer and motion to strike.

On the Court’s own motion, on July 17, 2024 the Court continued the hearing from July 26, 2024, to September 4, 2024.

On July 24, 2024, Defendants replied.

II. Demurrer and Motion to Strike Procedural Requirements Met

Meet and Confer

The Court notes that Defendants have met the meet and confer requirement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a)(3)(B). (Potts Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.)

Procedural Deficiencies

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1005 subdivision (b) states that all papers opposing a motion must be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days before the hearing. The hearing on Defendants’ Demurrer was originally scheduled for July 26, 2024. Thus, Schlaff’s Opposition was due by July 15, 2024. Schlaff did not serve his Opposition until July 16, 2024.

Additionally, as the Demurrer and the Motion to Strike are two separate motions, Schlaff should have submitted two separate oppositions, rather than opposing both the Demurrer and Motion to Strike in one opposition.

However, as there is no apparent prejudice to the parties, and the moving parties responded in two separate replies, the Court will exercise its discretion and hear the motions on their merits.

III. Continuance of hearing to permit further briefing

            The Court continues the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike in order to consider further briefing by the parties. Specifically, the Court requests further briefing on the effect of Business & Professions Code section 6094, subdivision (a) to this action. That statute provides that: “Communications to the State Bar relating to lawyer misconduct or disability or competence, or any communication related to an investigation or proceedings and testimony given in the proceeding are privileged, and no lawsuit predicated thereon may be instituted against any person.” Although the parties do not address this statute in the motion or subsequent opposition or reply, the Court finds that it is an important threshold issue that may preclude some of the causes of action in the FAC.

IV. Conclusion

The Court will continue the hearing on the Defendants’ Demurrer and Motion to Strike to October 4, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. Moving parties may serve and file a supplemental brief as to the effect of Business and Professions Code section 6094, subdivision (a), not to exceed 10 pages, by September 19, 2024. Opposing party may serve and file a supplemental brief in response, not to exceed 10 pages, by September 26, 2024.