Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22AHCV00344, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00344    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Ann Hyatt Logan

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Bradley Ranch Co-Owners LLC

Defendant’s Special Demurrer to Complaint of Plaintiff, Bradley Ranch Co-Owners LLC

The court considered the moving papers, response, and (late) reply filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Bradley Ranch Co-Owners LLC filed this action on June 8, 2022 against Defendants Christy Snyder Bradley (“Bradley”), Ann Hyatt Logan (“Logan”), and Philip M. Szymanski (“Szymanski”). Plaintiff alleges that from December 18, 2020 until May 21, 2022, Bradley was the sole manager of Plaintiff. On September 29, 2021, Bradley caused Plaintiff to sell its primary asset, 120 acres of farmland in Ventura County, California for $3,150,000. After the net sale proceeds were deposited into Plaintiff’s bank account, Bradley embezzled $3,110,000 from Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Bradley and the other defendants formed a conspiracy to embezzle the money, and that Logan received $300,000 from the embezzled funds as part of the conspiracy. (Compl., ¶¶ 7, 24-27.) Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts causes of action for (1) conversion – embezzlement, (2) constructive fraud, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) violation of Penal Code §496, (5) unjust enrichment, (6) money had and received, (7) imposition of constructive trust, (8) accounting, and (9) injunctive relief and provisional remedies. 

            Logan now demurs to the first, second, third, fourth, and seventh causes of action on the basis that each fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  

LEGAL STANDARD

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.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)

DISCUSSION

“Although conspiracy to commit a tort is not a separate cause of action from the tort itself, alleging a conspiracy fastens liability on those who agree to the plan to commit the wrong as well as those who actually carry it out.” (Stueve Bros. Farms, LLC v. Berger Kahn (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 303, 323.) “The elements of a civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act done in furtherance of the common design.” (Ibid.)

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Logan (and Szymanski) furthered the conspiracy by cooperating with Bradley, lending aid and encouragement to Bradley, and ratifying and adopting Bradley’s acts by receiving and holding the embezzled funds. (See Compl., ¶¶ 26, 37, 45, 70.) Logan argues that this in insufficient to allege the existence of a conspiracy, but as noted by Plaintiff, “[g]eneral allegations of agreement have been held sufficient.” (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 47.) The court finds that the allegations in the complaint suffice to allege the elements of a conspiracy.

Next, Logan argues that the fourth cause of action for violation of Penal Code section 496 must fail because Plaintiff fails to allege that Logan had knowledge that the funds she received were stolen. (Pen. Code, § 496 [authorizing civil lawsuits for receiving stolen property “knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained”].) But Plaintiff expressly alleges that Logan knew that the money she received was stolen. (Compl., ¶ 49 [“The Money was stolen by defendant CHRISTY from Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants CHRISTY, ANN, PHILIP, and DOES 1-100 have possession of the Money, knowing it was stolen.”].)  

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court overrules Logan’s demurrer to the complaint in its entirety.

The court orders Logan to file and serve an answer to the complaint within 10 days of the date of this order.

Logan is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 30, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court