Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV36723, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV36723 Hearing Date: March 6, 2023 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Harutyunyan vs.
Hakobyan, et. al., Case No. 22STCV36723
Tentative Ruling
re: Defendant’s Demurrer to First
Amended Complaint
Defendant A&H Management
(A&H) demurs to the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Karen Harutyunyan
(Plaintiff). The demurrer is sustained with ten (10) days leave to amend.
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.)
“A cause
of action for breach of contract requires pleading of a contract, plaintiff's
performance or excuse for failure to perform, defendant's breach and damage to
plaintiff resulting therefrom.” (Hale v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183
Cal.App.4th 1373, 1387.)
Plaintiff’s FAC alleges one cause of action against A&H for Breach of Contract. (FAC p. 4.) Under
this cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that she entered into a Management
Agreement with Anna Hakobyan and A&H, Hakobyan’s company, under which Hakobyan and A&H “would act
as the management company for the home health business operating under the
Plaintiff’s license.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges that the defendants
breached the agreement on September 1, 2022, by “mishandling accounts and
payment of its liabilities and other obligations which can cause Plaintiff’s
license with the California Health Board to fall out of good standing.” A copy
of the Management Agreement is attached to the FAC. (FAC p. 22.)
Plaintiff’s
allegations are insufficient to support a cause of action for breach of
contract against A&H. Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, Plaintiff must
allege facts regarding the conduct by Defendant constituting the breach.
Without such facts, Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and fail to state the
claim. (See Bentley v. Mountain (1942) 51 Cal.App.2d 95, 98 [“The
allegations of the amended complaint to the effect that defendants ‘violated’
said contracts, or ‘caused the violation’ of said contracts by others, are mere
conclusions of law which cannot strengthen the pleading in the absence of
allegations of fact showing such violations.”].) Accordingly, the demurrer is
sustained.