Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 24STCV22082, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Defendant The Desert Seven LLC’s demurrer to Plaintiff 3LA MGMT LLC’s complaint is overruled.

Defendant The Desert Seven LLC (“The Desert Seven”) (“Defendant”) demurs to Plaintiff 3LA MGMT LLC’s (“3LA”) (“Plaintiff”) entire complaint (“Complaint”) based on uncertainty, failure to state a claim, and whether the contract, if there is any, is written, oral, or is implied by conduct. (Notice of Demurrer, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §§430.10(e), (f), (g).)

Plaintiff filed its operative Complaint on August 28, 2024, alleging a single cause of action for common counts.

Defendant filed its demurrer on November 5, 2024. Plaintiff filed is opposition on December 31, 2024. On January 10, 2024, Defendant filed its reply.

Defendant demur to Plaintiff’s single cause of action for common counts based on uncertainty, failure to state a claim, and whether the contract, if there is any, is written, oral, or is implied by conduct. (Notice of Demurrer, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §§430.10(e), (f), (g).)

Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (C.C.P. §430.41(a), emphasis added.) A declaration must be filed with a demurrer regarding the results of the meet and confer process. (C.C.P. §430.41(a)(3).)

Defendant’s counsel failed to submit a meet and confer declaration, in violation of C.C.P. §430.41(a). However, the failure to sufficiently meet and confer is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer. (C.C.P. §430.41(a)(4); Dumas v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 355; Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services District (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 502, 515.) Accordingly, the Court will consider the instant demurrer.

“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) 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. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Insurance Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital District (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

“‘A cause of action for money had and received is stated if it is alleged [that] the defendant “is indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum ‘for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff.’” . . .’ The claim is viable ‘“wherever one person has received money which belongs to another, and which in equity and good conscience should be paid over to the latter.”’ As juries are instructed in CACI No. 370, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant received money ‘intended to be used for the benefit of [the plaintiff],’ that the money was not used for the plaintiff’s benefit, and that the defendant has not given the money to the plaintiff.” (Avidor v. Sutter’s Place, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1439, 1454, internal citations omitted.)

Plaintiff alleges Defendant, within the last two years, became indebted to Plaintiff for work, labor, services and materials rendered at the special instance and request of defendant and for which defendant promised to pay plaintiff the reasonable value. (Complaint ¶CC-1(b)(2).)

Plaintiff alleges Defendant, within the last two years, became indebted to Plaintiff for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered to Defendant and for which Defendant promised to pay Plaintiff the reasonable value. (Complaint ¶CC-1(b)(3).)

Plaintiff alleges Defendant, within the last two years, became indebted to Plaintiff for money paid, laid out, and expended to or for defendant at Defendant’s special instance and request. (Complaint ¶CC-1(b)(5).)

Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a cause of action for common counts. Defendant’s demurrer to a non-existent cause of action for breach of contract are not germane to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures. [Citations.]” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations are not so uncertain that Defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., it cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against it. (Id.)

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court