Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV26552, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 21STCV26552    Hearing Date: November 12, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendants Dalya Eilat, Veetahl Eilat Raichel, and Aaron Eilat’s Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint

Defendants Dalya Eilat, Veetahl Eilat Raichel, and Aaron Eilat jointly demur to the entire third amended complaint by plaintiff Ido Erlich Webber.  Plaintiff’s third amended complaint alleges six causes of action jointly against all defendants: (1) conversion, (2) breach of contract, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) unjust enrichment, (5) accounting, and (6) declaratory relief.

Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts for any of his claims.  All six causes of action rely on the premise that plaintiff “is entitled to receive interests in and distributions, income and benefits from the Subject Entities and Subject Properties at least equal, equivalent or comparable to what VEETAHL and AARON have been and are receiving.”  (3AC, ¶ 18.e.)  Plaintiff alleges no facts supporting the legal conclusion that he is entitled to those things.  Rather than alleging any basis for that conclusion, he alleges he does not know why he is entitled to them except because his late father owned the subject entities and properties. 

The third amended complaint alleges, “Plaintiff’s father, MOSHE, had a substantial interest in” numerous specified properties and entities.  (3AC, ¶ 18.a.)  He further alleges, “MOSHE intended, wanted and provided for his three children, VEETAHL, AARON and Plaintiff to be treated equally and for Plaintiff to receive from the Subject Properties income and economic benefits equal or equivalent to what VEETAHL and AARON receive.  Plaintiff does not know the specific mechanism as to how that was supposed to happen.  However, Plaintiff knows that MOSHE loved all of his children equally and would not have wanted Plaintiff to be excluded from having interests in, or from receiving income, distributions and benefits at least equal to those received by VEETAHL and AARON from, the Subject Properties and the Subject Entities.”  (¶ 18.b.) 

A parent’s love or what he would or would not have wanted are not valid bases for legal ownership of property.  Being one of three siblings does not automatically mean plaintiff is entitled to one third of what his father owned.  Plaintiff alleges no other reason why he owns an interest in the subject properties and entities. 

The court need not and does not reach the other grounds for defendants’ demurrer.

Defendants Dalya Eilat, Veetahl Eilat Raichel, and Aaron Eilat’s demurrer to the entire third amended complaint is sustained with 20 days’ leave to amend.