Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2023-00020772-CU-CO-CTL, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Contract - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00020772-CU-CO-CTL TOW & TRANSPORT INC VS COPART INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 09/15/2023

Defendant Copart, Inc.'s Demurrer to Complaint is OVERRULED IN PART (as to the entire Complaint), SUSTAINED IN PART WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND (as to 1st-8th causes of action) AND SUSTAINED IN PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (as to 9th-10th causes of action).

Defendant Copart, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint is OFF CALENDAR as moot.

Demurrer Defendant's request for judicial notice of eight vehicle registration is granted and notice will be taken to the extent permitted.

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) The complaint must be liberally construed and given a reasonable interpretation, with a view to substantial justice between the parties. (Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140–141; see also, Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-12 [in ruling on demurrers, courts treat as being true 'not only the complaint's material factual allegations, but also facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged'].) Entire Complaint The demurrer to the entire complaint is OVERRULED as it relies on extrinsic evidence to prove Defendant was not the owner of each of the vehicles at issue.

Causes of Action 1-7- Foreclosure of Mechanics' Lien 'Irrespective of the labels attached by the pleader to any alleged cause of action, [courts] examine the factual allegations of the complaint, to determine whether they state a cause of action on any available legal theory. (North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 764, 786.) Here, the Court disregards Plaintiff's use of the label 'mechanics' lien.' But Plaintiff did not respond to Copart's argument that its recourse to perfect a lien was not through filing suit; but through a foreclosure sale. Civil Code section 3068.1 details the way in which a private property Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3021242  42 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  TOW & TRANSPORT INC VS COPART INC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00020772-CU-CO-CTL owner can perfect a lien when vehicles were towed due to a public agency and suggests its limited resource is through the avenues described in Civil Code sections 3071 and 3072. (Civ. Code, § 3068.1(b) & (c).) Thus, the demurrer to causes of action 1 through 7 is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Cause of Action 8 – Common Count for Work, Labor & Services The eighth cause of action does not state facts to constitute a cause of action. It seeks to exact the same recovery demanded in Plaintiff's other causes of action. (McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 379, 394-95.) Thus, the demurrer to the eighth cause of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Cause of Action 9 – Common Count for Money/Quantum Meruit The ninth cause of action does not state facts to constitute quantum meruit. There are no facts alleged showing Plaintiff performed services pursuant to Copart's express or implied request. (Day v. Alta Bates Med. Ctr. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 243, 248.) Thus, the demurrer to the ninth cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Cause of Action 10 – Common Count – for Restitution/Unjust Enrichment Copart argues there is no cause of action for unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, Division 1 has held that unjust enrichment does not exist as a cause of action in California.

(Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1370.) Instead, '[u]njust enrichment is synonymous with restitution.' (Ibid.) Unjust enrichment 'is not, strictly speaking, a theory of recovery, 'but an effect: the result of a failure to make restitution under circumstances where it is equitable to do so.' ' (Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1132 [internal quotations omitted].) California courts have shown a consistent willingness to evaluate claims for restitution on the merits even when labeled as causes of action for 'unjust enrichment.' (See, e.g., Durell, at pp. 1370– 1371; Levine v. Blue Shield of California (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1138; McBride v. Boughton (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 379, 388 [construing 'purported cause of action for unjust enrichment as an attempt to plead a cause of action giving rise to a right of restitution'].) Even the California Supreme Court implicitly recognized a cause of action for unjust enrichment in Ghirardo v. Antonioli (1996) 14 Cal.4th 39, 47, 50 ['Antonioli was...entitled to seek relief under traditional equitable principles of unjust enrichment.'].

But even if there is a claim for restitution, based on the ruling above, there is no viable cause of action to support it.

Thus, the demurrer in the ninth cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Motion to Strike The unopposed motion to strike seeks to strike allegations concerning injunctive relief and attorney fees under Business and Professions Code section 17203. The Complaint does not include claims for injunction or violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. Notwithstanding, the unopposed motion to strike is OFF CALENDAR as moot in light of the ruling on the demurrer.

Concluding Orders For these reasons, the demurrer is OVERRULED IN PART, SUSTAINED IN PART WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AND SUSTAINED IN PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

The motion to strike is ordered OFF CALENDAR.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3021242  42 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  TOW & TRANSPORT INC VS COPART INC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00020772-CU-CO-CTL Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve an amended complaint by May 17, 2024.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final ruling.

Defendant is ordered to serve written notice of this ruling on all appearing parties by May 7, 2024.

Plaintiff is reminded to comply with Department 70's Policies and Procedures and to provide courtesy copies of motion briefing.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3021242  42