Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV18163, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18163    Hearing Date: November 15, 2023    Dept: 74

Anabi Oil Corporation v. Envision WC Toy Re, LLC, et al.

Plaintiff Anabi Oil Corporation’s Demurrer to Defendants Huoy Quoc Dang and D.S. Dang, LLC’s Cross-Complaint for Indemnity and Damages

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a contractual dispute.

            On November 29, 2022, Anabi Oil Corporation (Anabi) filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against Huy Quoc Dang and D.S. Dang, LLC (Dang), in addition to others. The FAC alleges breach of contract and tortious interference.

            On February 28, 2023, Dang answered the FAC.

            On July 11, 2023, Dang filed a cross-complaint against Anabi and others. The cross-complaint includes a cause of action for declaratory relief.

            On August 3, 2023, Anabi filed a demurrer to the cross-complaint. Anabi seeks dismissal of Dang’s cause of action for declaratory relief.

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 

            Anabi argues the court should sustain its demurrer for the tenth cause of action in Dang’s cross-complaint. According to Anabi, Dang’s declaratory relief claim is unnecessary because it duplicates issues raised in the operative complaint and Dang’s answer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1061 [court has discretion to refuse to render a declaratory judgment when it would not be necessary under the circumstances].) In Dang’s cross-complaint, Dang seeks an order declaring, in part, that “the [g]uaranty was a void and unenforceable sham guaranty. (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 131.) But Dang’s sixty-second affirmative defense asserts the same. (Answer to FAC, ¶ 62.) As Anabi notes, “[a] declaratory judgment is not a proper mode of determining the sufficiency of legal defenses to a pending action.” (Sunset Scavenger Corp. v. Oddou (1936) 11 Cal.App.2d 92, 96.)

            In the cross-complaint, Dang further seeks an order that, “Dang is not personally liable for the obligations under the RFDIP [a.k.a. the incentive agreement] pursuant to the [g]uaranty.” (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 131.) But Anabi has already alleged that Dang breached the incentive agreement in the operative complaint. (FAC, ¶¶ 61, 66.) And Dang already denied that allegation in the answer. (Answer, ¶ 1.) Consequently, the court’s resolution of Anabi’s breach of contract claim will dispose of the issue of Dang’s liability under the incentive agreement. Thus, Dang’s cause of action for declaratory relief is unnecessary.

CONCLUSION 

            Based on the foregoing, the court sustains the demurrer to the 10^th cause of action for declaratory relief without leave to amend.

Anabi Oil Corporation shall give notice.