Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case Number: 22STCV14601, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV14601, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14601 Hearing Date: September 29, 2023 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Care Plus Medical Group, Inc., et. al. vs. Law Offices of Michael E. Reznick, et. al., Case No. 22STCV14601

Tentative Ruling re Defendants’ Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint; Motions to Strike

Defendants Law Offices of Michael E. Reznick and Michael E. Reznick (collectively, the Reznick Defendants) demur to the fifth and seventh causes of action in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (SAC), and move to strike portions of the SAC. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank (Chase) separately moves to strike portions of the SAC.

The Reznick Defendants’ demurrer is sustained without leave to amend and the motion to strike is granted. Chase’s motion to strike is granted.

In reviewing the legal sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, a court will treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (Blank); C & H Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1062.) It is well settled that a “demurrer lies only for defects appearing on the face of the complaint[.]” (Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) “The rules by which the sufficiency of a complaint is tested against a general demurrer are well settled. We not only treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but also give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Guclimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38 (internal quotes omitted).) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, the complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded. (Wilner v. Sunset Life Ins. Co. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 952, 958.)

When ruling on a demurrer, the Court may only consider the complaint’s allegations or matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) The Court may not consider any other extrinsic evidence or judge the credibility of the allegations plead or the difficulty a plaintiff may have in proving his allegations. (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.) A demurrer is properly sustained only when the complaint, liberally construed, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action. (Kramer v. Intuit Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 574, 578.)

On March 28, 2023, the Court sustained the Reznick Defendants’ demurrer to the Fraud and Abuse of Process causes of action in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The Court also granted the Reznick Defendants’ Motion to Strike as to allegations concerning the Reznick Defendants’ filing of litigation in the Los Angeles Superior Court and Bankruptcy Court.

Despite the Court’s order, Plaintiffs have asserted the Fraud and Abuse of Process causes of action against the Reznick Defendants in their SAC. (SAC ¶¶ 76-88, 96-101.) Plaintiffs have also re-pled the allegations that were subject to the Reznick Defendants’ motion to strike. (SAC ¶¶ 4(d), 34 [p. 19:12-21], 39, 42 [p. 26:11-13], 43(b), (d), and (h), 47(c) and (e), 77, 97, 106 [p. 47:13-18].)

Plaintiffs argue that the re-alleged causes of action relate to other defendants in this action. But this is irrelevant to the fact that the claims are improperly pled against the Reznick Defendants; both the fifth and seventh causes of action are asserted “Against All Defendants Except JPMorgan Chase Bank.” (SAC ¶¶ 76, 96.)

As the Court has previously noted, Plaintiffs’ argument that they must re-allege the causes of action in subsequent amended complaints in order to facilitate their appeal is incorrect. (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 35, 45 [“such pointless re-allegation is unnecessary to avoid waiver.”]; see Code Civ. Proc. § 472c, subd. (b).) Plaintiffs have provided no cogent explanation for their continued inclusion of these claims and allegations. Accordingly, the Reznick Defendants’ demurrer is sustained and motion to strike is granted.

Chase moves to strike Paragraphs 45, 46, 47(f), 49(j) and (k), 110, 111 [p. 49:2-3], 112, 113, 114 [p. 50:5:10], 116-120, 126-129, and Prayer 2(j) and (k). The subject allegations are those relating to Chase under Plaintiffs’ cause of action for “Preliminary Injunction, Permanent Injunction, and Damages,” and Plaintiffs’ ninth and eleventh causes of action against Chase for Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

On October 11, 2022, the Court sustained Chase’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint without leave to amend the first, ninth, and eleventh causes of action for preliminary injunction, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs reasserted those claims in their FAC, and on March 23, 2023, the Court granted Chase’s Motion to Strike as to the allegations that were subject to the prior demurrer. Plaintiffs have again included the same claims and allegations in their SAC, and in support present the same arguments previously rejected by the Court. As the allegations remain improper, Chase’s motion to strike is granted.