Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 24STCV00706, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00706    Hearing Date: December 12, 2024    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date:             December 12, 2024

Case Name:                Westlake Services, LLC v. Perl

Case No.:                    24STCV00706

Matter:                        Demurrer to the Answer

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC

Responding Party:      None

Tentative Ruling:      The Demurrer to the Answer is overruled.           

             This is a contract dispute. Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges Defendant Chaim Perl (“Defendant”) sold a vehicle to a third party. Plaintiff agreed to finance the sale according to a Master Dealer Agreement (“Agreement”). Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached certain warranties and representations in the Agreement, triggering Defendant’s obligation to repurchase the loan. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to repurchase the loan.

            On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Common Counts.

On March 15, 2024, Defendant filed a demurrer to both causes of action. The Court sustained the demurrer on May 22, 2024.

On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint alleging the same causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Common Counts.

On June 26, 2024, Defendant again demurred to both causes of action. The Court sustained the demurrer on September 25, 2024.

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint alleging the same causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Common Counts. In response, Defendant filed an Answer.

Now, Plaintiff has filed a demurrer to the Answer. No opposition was filed.

            The demurrer is overruled.  

Legal Standard for Demurrers

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ”  (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

Discussion

            Plaintiff demurs to all fifteen defenses alleged in the Answer on the grounds that each affirmative defense fails to plead sufficient facts to support it. Based on a review of the Answer, the allegations are sufficient to support each affirmative defenses alleged.

Conclusion

The demurrer to the Answer is overruled.