Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV22815, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22815    Hearing Date: August 18, 2023    Dept: 74

Richard Lopez’s Demurrer filed July 17 to Rafael Miranda’s Cross-Complaint.

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

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a property dispute.

            Rafael David Miranda (Cross-Complainant) claims that he entered a settlement agreement in 2015 with Andres Contreras, under which Miranda was a joint owner of 920 Eastman Property. In 2017, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Richard Lopez (Cross-Defendant) bought the 920 Eastman Property from Contreras. In November 2017, Lopez gained possession of the 920 Eastman Property through unlawful detainer proceedings against Miranda. In a 2021 lawsuit, Miranda tried to quiet title in himself to the 920 Eastman Property, but the court sustained Lopez’s demurrer with prejudice. In February 2022, Miranda was evicted from another property (913 Eastman Property) and his personal property was damaged in the process. Additionally, Miranda has claimed Lopez interfered with the settlement agreement.

In July 2022, Lopez sued Miranda. In December 2022, Miranda countersued with his cross-complaint, followed in May 2023 with his First Amended Cross-Complaint. Miranda’s FACC alleges among other causes of action the following: (1) declaratory relief, (2) unjust enrichment, and (3) intentional interference with contract. On July 17, 2023, Lopez demurred to the first, second, and third causes of action in Miranda’s FACC.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            The court grants Lopez’s request for judicial notice.

LEGAL STANDARD         

            The court applies the customary standards involving demurrers. (¿¿Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318¿¿.)

DISCUSSION 

Res Judicata

            Relying on principles of res judicata, Lopez contends Miranda cannot revive any claims based on the alleged breach of the settlement agreement, Lopez’s purchase of the 920 Eastman property in 2017, Miranda’s eviction from the 920 Eastman property in 2017, and the alleged theft of his personal property in 2017. However, much of the alleged misconduct in the FACC took place in 2022. Accordingly, the court concludes res judicata does not bar the FACC.

First Cause of Action – Declaratory Relief

            To qualify for declaratory relief, a plaint must show their action presents the following elements: (1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party.” (Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 405, 410.)

            Cross-Complainant alleges, “An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendants concerning his respective rights and duties regarding that Written Settlement Agreement between parties.” (FACC, ¶ 27.) In his opposition, Cross-Complainant adds that he desires, “a judicial determination of the rights and duties of the parties based upon the Settlement Agreement.” (Opposition, at p. 21.) As Cross-Defendant notes, though, even under Cross-Complainant’s allegations, Cross-Defendant is not a party to the settlement agreement at issue. (FACC, ¶¶ 2, 18, 20.) Nor has Cross-Complainant alleged facts showing that the settlement agreement binds Cross-Defendant. Consequently, the FACC does not demonstrate an actual controversy between Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendant involving the settlement agreement. The court sustains Cross-Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action with leave to amend.

Second Cause of Action – Unjust Enrichment

            California courts do not recognize unjust enrichment as a separate cause of action. (Castillo v. Toll Bros., Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1209-1210.) Thus, the court sustains Cross-Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action without leave to amend.

Third Cause of Action – Intentional Interference with Contract

            The elements for this cause of action are: “(1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant’s knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.” (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) Cal.4th 26, 55.)

            Cross-Defendant argues that that his alleged misconduct in 2022 does not pertain to the alleged settlement agreement between Cross-Complainant and Andres Contreras. However, Cross-Complainant alleges that Cross-Defendant and others, “knew about the settlement agreement, advised and communicated with . . . Andres Contreras through their real estate agents and attorneys to commit the following unlawful acts . . . hired a licensed attorney for [Cross-Defendant’s] tenants in order to rescind Settlement Agreement with the intent and for the purpose of liquidating the said real property at a maximum contracts sale price to their private cash real estate investors without Cross-Complainant’s personal knowledge. (FACC, ¶ 39.) Moreover: “In do [sic] so, [Cross-Defendant and others] acted with the intent to cause . . . Andres Contreras to breach his contractual obligations to [Cross-Complainant] under the Settlement Agreement . . .” (FACC, ¶ 39.) Lastly, Cross-Complainant has alleged resulting damage. (FACC, ¶ 40.) And since the alleged breach took place in 2022, the statute of limitations will not bar this claim. The court overrules Cross-Defendant’s demurrer to the third cause of action.

CONCLUSION 

            Based on the foregoing, the court sustains Cross-Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action with leave to amend, sustains Cross-Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action without leave to amend, and overrules Cross-Defendant’s demurrer to the third cause of action.