Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2023-00008646-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 25, 2024

04/26/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00008646-CU-BC-CTL HARWARD VS DEVANEY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court rules as follows on Defendants Sophia Jin Devaney, an individual and Sophia Jin Devaney, Trustee of the Sophia Jin Devaney Separate Property Trust Dated March 27, 2012's demurrer to Plaintiff's complaint.

Plaintiff raises several preliminary procedural issues in opposition including that Sophia Devaney has previously filed an answer [ROA 23]. In the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, the court treats Defendants' demurrer as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff also raises the procedural issue of whether Defendants satisfied the meet and confer requirements of CCP § 430.41. However, such failure is not grounds for denial of either a demurrer or a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

CCP § 430.41(a)(4); CCP § 439(a)(4).

As to the merits, Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

The complaint names all three Defendants on the sole cause of action for breach of promissory note – Patrick Devaney, Sophia Jin Devaney, individually and Sophia Jin Devaney, Trustee. As pled, the promissory note at issue is the November 12, 2019, Promissory Note which is attached to Plaintiff's complaint as Exhibit A. As Holland v. Morse Diesel Intern., Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1443 explains, the court may 'take notice of exhibits attached to the complaints' and '[i]f facts appearing in the exhibits contradict those alleged, the facts in the exhibits take precedence.' Holland, 86 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447 citing Mead v. Sanwa Bank California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 561, 567–568. The November 12, 2019, Promissory Note identifies Plaintiff as 'Lender' and Defendant Patrick Devaney as 'Borrower.' The terms of the November 12, 2019, Promissory Note include: 'PATRICK DEVANEY, a married man as his sole an separate property, (hereinafter called the 'Borrower'), hereby promises to pay to Robert S.

Harward (the 'Lender'), the principal sum of $200,000 (two hundred thousand dollars).' There is no reference to Defendants Sophia Jin Devaney, individually or Sophia Jin Devaney, Trustee as borrowers or as promising to pay any monies to Plaintiff. The only reference is to 'Sophia Devaney' is as 'Trust Beneficiary' on the signature line. Based on the express terms of the November 12, 2019, Promissory Note identifying only Defendant Patrick Devaney as borrower and solely obligated under the promissory note, the court finds the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to support a cause of action for breach of promissory note against Defendants Sophia Jin Devaney, individually or Sophia Jin Devaney, Trustee.

In opposition Plaintiff seeks leave to amend and submits a proposed first amended complaint. Plaintiff's proposed first amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies with respect to the breach of promissory note cause of action alleged against Defendants Sophia Jin Devaney, individually and Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3100116  1 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HARWARD VS DEVANEY [IMAGED]  37-2023-00008646-CU-BC-CTL Sophia Jin Devaney, Trustee. However, the court allows Plaintiff 10 days leave to amend to plead the proposed alternate causes of action. The court is not persuaded by Defendants' arguments against allowing leave to amend. Defendants fail to negate the viability of the other causes of action included in Plaintiff's proposed first amended complaint. Also, as this is the first pleading challenge, the court finds leave to amend appropriate and exercises its discretion in favor of allowing leave to amend.

Defendants' request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3100116  1