Judge: Brian F. Gasdia, Case: 20NWCV00662, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20NWCV00662    Hearing Date: June 12, 2025    Dept: R

#3

SO CAL LIEN SOLUTIONS LLC v. GOODMAN SANTA FE SPRINGS SPE LLC

CASE NO.:  20NWCV00662

HEARING:  06/12/25

Defendant GOODMAN SANTA FE SPRINGS SPE LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED. Answer to be filed and served within 30 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Opposing Party to give Notice.  

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (Cal. Ev. Code §452.)

BACKGROUND

This collections action was filed by Plaintiff SOCAL LIEN SOLUTIONS LLC (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant GOODMAN SANTA FE SPRINGS SPE LLC (“Defendant”) and Does 10, inclusive, on March 4, 2024.

On July 12, 2024, the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed. The FAC alleges the following relevant facts: “Plaintiff’s assignor, provided equipment, labor, and services for the work of improvement to the Subject Property from on or about July 21, 2023, through on or about July 25, 2023. These services were requested on July 19, 2023 by Goodman employee Gonzalo D’Ambrosio, who stated to Plaintiff’s assignor ‘they need to get that soil out by this Friday at the very latest.’ Thus, the property owner Goodman acquiesced in, and did not repudiate the equipment, labor, and services for improvements to the Subject Property made by Plaintiff’s assignor to remove said soil from the Subject Property. [¶] Plaintiff’s assignor performed as requested, or as otherwise acquiesced in without repudiation, however, the Defendants have failed to pay the sum now due and unpaid in the amount of $40,640.00…. Defendant Good man requested and required the soil in question  to be removed in the course of the development of the Subject Property… and therefore directly benefited from the equipment, labor, and services for the work of improvement to the Subject Property provided by Plaintiff’s assignor.” (FAC ¶¶7-9.)

The FAC asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Services Rendered;

(2) Quasi Contract Recovery;

(3) Quantum Meruit;

(4) Foreclosure of Mechanics Lien

Defendant generally demurs to each cause of action.

DISCUSSION

Defendant generally demurs to each cause of action on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff (assignee) fails to sufficiently allege a valid assignment of claim; (2) Plaintiff’s common counts claims fail because Defendant is not a party to the express written agreements and there is no privity of contract between Plaintiff and Defendant; (3) the allegations of the FAC conflict with the terms, covenants, and conditions of preliminary lien notice, September 12, 2023 lien, and Exhibit B to the FAC; (4) the fourth cause of action for foreclosure of mechanic’s lien is insufficiently pled; (5) Defendant timely posted and recorded a Notice of Non-responsibility and neither Defendant or its real property are liable for Plaintiff’s mechanic’s lien.

Standing/Valid Assignment

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Plaintiff (assignee) fails to sufficiently allege a valid assignment of claim. Thus, Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this action against Defendant.

A challenge to a plaintiff’s standing in a case, at least at the preliminary stage, is usually brought up in a demurrer. (Martin v. Bridgeport Comm. Ass’n., Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1031.) At this stage in the proceedings, all that is required of Plaintiff is to make general, factual allegations, to show that it has standing. (Kwikset Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 327-328.) “[E]ach element [of standing] must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation. At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we presum[e] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.” (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff generally alleges that Plaintiff “SoCal Lien Solutions, LLC, a California limited liability company…, [is the] assignee pursuant to CA Civ. Code §954…of SNG MATERIALS-RAYMOND TRUCKING (‘Assignor’/’SNG’)….” (FAC 1:21-23; Ex. A.) This allegation is sufficient to withstand challenge at the pleading stage of litigation.

First and Third Causes of Action – Services Rendered and Quantum Meruit

The elements for “services rendered” are “the services performed, an oral promise to compensate by will, the failure to perform the promise, the reasonable value of the services, and failure to pay.” (Toney v. Security First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 161, 167.)

“The requisite elements of quantum meruit are (1) the plaintiff acted pursuant to an explicit or implicit request for the services by the defendant, and (2) the services conferred a benefit on the defendant.” (Port Medical Wellness, Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 153, 180.)

“To recover in quantum meruit, the plaintiff must establish both that he or she was acting pursuant to either an express or implied request for such services from the defendant and that the services rendered were intended to and did benefit the defendant; further, the defendant must have retained the benefit with full appreciation of the facts.” (Pacific Bay Recovery, Inc. v. California Physicians’ Services, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 200, 214-215.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges: “Defendant requested by words or conduct, or otherwise acquiesced, that Plaintiff’s assignor provided certain equipment, labor, and services for the removal of soil… for the works of improvement to the subject property for the benefit of the Defendants. [¶] Plaintiff’s assignor performed as requested. [¶] Defendant has not paid Plaintiff’s assignor the remaining unpaid balance due of $40,640.00.” (FAC ¶¶11-13; see also FAC ¶¶21-24.) These allegations are sufficient to withstand demurrer. The arguments raised by Defendant in support of the instant demurrer raise factual determinations inappropriately decided at this stage in the litigation.

The demurrer to the first and third causes of action is OVERRULED.

Second Cause of Action – Quasi Contract

“ ‘Quasi-contract’ is simply another way of describing the basis for the equitable remedy of restitution when an unjust enrichment has occurred. Often called quantum meruit, it applies ‘[w]here one obtains a benefit which he may not justly retain…. The quasi-contract, or contract ‘implied in law,’ is an obligation created by the law without regard to the intention of the parties, and is designed to restore the aggrieved party to his former position by return of the thing or its equivalent in money.” (McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 379, 388, n. 6.)

“The elements of an unjust enrichment claim are the ‘receipt of a benefit and [the] unjust retention of the benefit at the expense of another.’ [Citation.]” (Peterson v. Cellco Partnership (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1583, 1593.) Unjust enrichment is not a cause of action, but a court may construe a cause of action for unjust enrichment as a cause of action for quasi-contract seeking restitution. (Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Plaza Del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 221, 231.)

The FAC alleges that Defendant received the benefit of Plaintiff’s assignor’s services. Further, the FAC pleads that Defendant unjustly retained those benefits at Plaintiff’s/Plaintiff’s assignor’s expense. (FAC ¶¶ 16-18.)

Plaintiff adequately pleads sufficient facts to maintain a claim for quasi-contract. The demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED.

Fourth Cause of Action – Foreclosure of Mechanic’s Lien

A mechanic’s lien is a claim against the real property upon which the claimant has bestowed labor or furnished materials. (Kim v. JF Enterprises (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 849, 854). The required contents of a mechanic’s lien are set for in Cal. Civ. Code §8416.

Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n 02/27/24, and after the Plaintiff’s assignor had completed its work on the Subject Property and within 90 days before the completion of the work of improvement to the Subject Property, Plaintiff’s assignor duly recorded, at a fee of $106.00, a Mechanic’s Lien describing the project and the labor, services, equipment, and materials to be furnished on the project….” (FAC ¶30.)

The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is OVERRULED. Defendant’s arguments involve factual determinations inappropriately decided at this stage in the litigation.