Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2023-00045962-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-10 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 09, 2024

05/10/2024  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 37-2023-00045962-CU-BC-CTL VALDEZ VS VALDEZ-KEENE [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Griselda Valdez-Keene's demurrer to Plaintiff Olivia Valdez's complaint is OVERRULED.

Preliminarily, because Plaintiff and Defendant share the same surname, the court refers to the parties by their first names. No disrespect is intended.

Griselda's demurrer under CCP § 430.10(a) ['[t]he court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading] is OVERRULED. Griselda fails to provide any authority for her argument that the pending probate court matter, although involving these same parties and the same real property [In re Estate of Guadalupe, Case No. 37-2022-0006057-PR-LA-CTL], deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction of Olivia's claims in this case.

Griselda's demurrer under CCP § 430.10(c) ['[t]here is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action'] is OVERRULED. Griselda argues that Olivia's pursuit of claims in the probate court matter precludes Olivia's claims in this case. Based on the evidence Griselda submits, Olivia's objection to Griselda's petition in the probate court matter asserts claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract and also requests an accounting. On October 4, 2023, the probate court dismissed Olivia's promissory estoppel and breach of contract objections as 'being late filed' and ordered Griselda to provide an accounting. As such, the promissory estoppel and breach of contract claims are no longer pending in the probate court matter. Absent pending claims on the same causes of action, Griselda fails to establish grounds for demurrer under CCP § 430.10(c). To the extent Griselda may contend that Olivia's claims in this case are barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel, Griselda fails to provide authority holding that a procedural ruling not on the merits invokes either res judicata or collateral estoppel.

Griselda's demurrer to the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action under CCP § 430.10(e) ['[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action'] and based on uncertainty is OVERRULED. The court finds the allegations sufficient to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress – that Griselda engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct with the intention of causing, or in reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress to Olivia [Cplt. ¶¶ 49, 50, 51]; that Olivia suffered severe or extreme emotional distress [Cplt. ¶¶ 51, 52 ]; and that Griselda's outrageous conduct was the actual and proximate cause of Olivia's emotional distress [Cplt. ¶¶ 51, 52]. See, Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050.

As to Griselda's demurrer to the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cause of action based on uncertainty, Olivia concedes that the allegations of ¶ 30 inadvertently refer to Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3100505  6 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  VALDEZ VS VALDEZ-KEENE [IMAGED]  37-2023-00045962-CU-BC-CTL 'insurance' 'insurance company' and 'insured.' Olivia's opposition also sets forth Olivia's proposed amendment to ¶ 30. In the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, the court treats Griselda's demurrer to this cause of action as a motion to strike. The court grants Griselda's motion to strike. The court also grants Olivia's request for leave to amend and, sua sponte, strikes ¶ 30 of the complaint and replaces ¶ 30 with the following: 30. In every contract there is an implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing that neither party to the contract will do anything to injure the right of the other party to receive the benefits of the agreement Griselda's demurrer to the breach of contract cause of action under CCP § 430.10(g) ['it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct'] is OVERRULED. ¶ 23 of the complaint alleges that Griselda made 'oral and written promises' to Olivia.

The court finds ¶ 23 and the other allegations as to the alleged oral and written promises made by Griselda [Cplt. ¶¶ 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] sufficient to meet the requirements of subsection CCP § 430.10(g).

Griselda also argues that this action should be consolidated with the probate matter and heard in probate court. Griselda fails to provide any authority holding that consolidation is grounds for demurrer.

To the extent Griselda separately seeks a motion to consolidate, Griselda's motion fails to comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.350 including that 'memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case.' CRC 3.350(a)(2)(A).

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

3100505  6