Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 24STCV10880, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10880    Hearing Date: August 2, 2024    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Hong v. Beverly Hills Properties, LLC, et. al., Case No. 24STCV10880

Tentative Ruling re:  Defendants’ Demurrer to Complaint

Defendants Rochelle Sterling, Donald T. Sterling and Beverly Hills Properties, LLC demur to the Complaint. The Court overrules the demurrer and orders Defendants to answer within ten (10) days of today’s date.

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 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.)

Defendants Rochelle Sterling, Donald T. Sterling and Beverly Hills Properties, LLC demur to the Complaint on the grounds that the Defendants are mis-joined and that elder abuse is an improper cause of action.

Joinder

“(a) All persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them:

(1) Any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action; or

(2) A claim, right, or interest adverse to them in the property or controversy which is the subject of the action.

(b) It is not necessary that each defendant be interested as to every cause of action or as to all relief prayed for. Judgment may be given against one or more defendants according to their respective liabilities.

(c) Where the plaintiff is in doubt as to the person from whom he or she is entitled to redress, he or she may join two or more defendants, with the intent that the question as to which, if any, of the defendants is liable, and to what extent, may be determined between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 379.)

Defendants demur as to the first through eighth causes of action on the grounds that the Defendants have been mis-joined. (Defendants’ demurrer, Lines 8-28, p. 6.) Specifically, Defendants contend that Donald Sterling, dba Beverly Hills Properties, should not be included in this suit because his wife Rochelle Sterling was already included as dba Beverly Hills Properties and therefor the inclusion of Donald Sterling is duplicative because California is a community property state. (Id.) Furthermore if Plaintiff’s employer is dba as Beverly Hills Properties, Plaintiff cannot also be simultaneously employed by Beverly Hills Properties, LLC. (Id.)

Here, the Complaint alleges that Donald Sterling and Rochelle Sterling were the owners of corporate Defendant Beverly Hills Properties. (Complaint ¶¶ 2-4.) Code Civ. Proc., section 379 subd. c, allows the Plaintiff to join multiple defendants if there is a question as to which or to what extent each defendant may be liable. Plaintiff alleges that Donald Sterling and Rochelle Sterling may share liability as owners of the corporation that employed Plaintiff. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to join them in this action.

Eight Cause of Action: Financial Elder Abuse

“ ‘Financial abuse’ of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following: (1) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.

(2) Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.

(3) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue influence, as defined in Section 15610.70.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.30.)

            “ ‘Earned but unpaid salary or wages are vested property rights.’ [Citation].” Reyes v. Van Elk, Ltd. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 604.

            Here, Plaintiff contends that the Defendants wrongfully withheld wages from her. (Plaintiff’s Opposition, Lines 15-18, p. 4.) Defendants disagree and assert that the failure to pay wages cannot be considered a taking as defined by Welf. & Inst. Code, section 15610.30. (Defendants’ demurrer, Lines 2-16, p. 8.) Mainly, Defendants argue that the elder abuse statue was never intended to protect against wage and employment claims and Plaintiff’s position is not supported by the labor code. (Id.) Lastly, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not pled the required elements of fraud and undue influence. (Id., Lines 17-28, p. 8.)

            The Court disagrees. Earned wages would qualify as real or personal property. Additionally, Welf. & Inst. Code, section 15610.30, requires that the property be taken for wrongful use or intent to defraud. Here, Plaintiff has alleged that her property was wrongfully withheld from her with the intent to defraud and by undue influence. (Complaint ¶¶ 56, 58.) This is sufficient to plead that her property was taken for wrongful use or fraud under the meaning of the statue. Therefore, The Court overrules Defendants’ demurrer as to the eighth cause of action.