Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV09498, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09498    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.  Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.  If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed legal malpractice in connection with construction licensing laws, resulting in Plaintiff being unable to collect its construction fees.

            Defendant Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P. demurs to the First Amended Complaint. 

TENTATIVE RULING 

            Defendant Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P.’s demurrer to the first and only cause of action is OVERRULED. 

            Defendant is ordered to answer the First Amended Complaint within 10 days.

ANALYSIS

Demurrer 

Meet and Confer 

            The Declaration of Fred L. Wilks reflects that Defendant’s counsel satisfied the meet and confer requirement set forth in CCP § 430.41.

Discussion 

            Defendant Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P. demurs to the First Amended Complaint.

1.         First Cause of Action (Professional Negligence).

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled the facts to satisfy the elements of professional negligence.

The elements of a cause of action for professional negligence are (1) the existence of the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional negligence. (Ibid.)

(Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

             Negligence may be pled generally:

No strict requirements exist for the form of such allegations. The legal conclusion that a "duty" exists is not necessary. Here, the duty to exercise reasonable care can be inferred from the assertion of the fact that defendant owned and managed the property. (Citation omitted.) The negligence element may be generally pleaded; the breach of duty of care may be alleged by stating the act was negligently done. (Citations omitted.) Here, the complaint alleged defendant's negligent management and maintenance of his property. Proximate cause, as here, may also be simply set forth. (Citation omitted.)

(Pultz v. Holgerson (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1116-17.)

Ordinarily, negligence may be pled in general terms and the plaintiff need not specify the precise act or omission alleged to constitute the breach of duty. (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795.)

Allegations of negligence have long been exempted from the code pleading requirement to state the facts constituting the cause of action. (Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 154 [157 P.2d 1].) Negligence may be generally pleaded and the enumeration of specific negligent acts in a complaint does not limit the plaintiff's proof at trial unless that is the pleader's clear intent. (Nielsen v. Milligan (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 40, 44 [222 P.2d 916].)

(McCoy v. Gustafson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 56, 102.)

            Here, Plaintiff has pled the existence of an attorney-client relationship with Defendant relating to legal advice on construction licensing laws to avoid the harsh consequences of doing construction work on a data center project without proper licensing. (1AC, ¶¶ 6, 7, 13.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to meet the standard of care to provide legal services with such skill, prudence and diligence as members of the California legal profession commonly possess and exercise, the result of which caused Plaintiff to suffer millions of dollars of damages following an adverse arbitration ruling. (1AC, ¶¶ 10, 11, 14, 15, 16.)

            Under the authorities cited above, this is sufficient to plead a cause of action for professional negligence.

            The demurrer to the first and only cause of action is OVERRULED.

            Defendant is ordered to answer the First Amended Complaint within 10 days.