Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV13784, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13784    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On April 26, 2022, Plaintiff Jose Ramos filed the instant action against Defendant RCMI. The complaint asserts a single cause of action for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant employed him to perform construction and upgrades to Defendant’s apartment complex but that Defendant only partially paid Plaintiff for his work. Plaintiff alleges that the parties had a written agreement. Plaintiff claims damages of $200,000. On June 10, 2022, Defendant filed the instant demurrer to the complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Ibid.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

A demurrer for uncertainty is disfavored and is only granted “if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) A complaint does not need to be a “model of clarity” to survive a demurrer because most ambiguities can be clarified through discovery. (Ibid.)

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.) The Court notes that Defendant has complied with the meet and confer requirement. (See McClintick Decl. ¶¶ 2-5.)

DISCUSSION

To establish breach of contract, a plaintiff must show: (1) the contract existed, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff. (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.)

Here, the complaint alleges that the parties had a written contract and that “Defendant employed Plaintiff to perform certain construction and upgrades to an apartment complex.” (Compl. ¶ BC-1.) The complaint further alleges that “although Defendants paid Plaintiff partially, Defendant still owes Plaintiff a balance of wages owe.” (Ibid.) The complaint specifies the breach as “failing to pay Plaintiff for work done.” (Id., ¶ BC-2.) Thus, the complaint sets forth that the parties had a written contract whereby Plaintiff would perform construction work on Defendant’s apartment complex in exchange for compensation, and that Defendant breached this contract by failing to fully compensate Plaintiff.

Defendant argues that the complaint must either state the terms of the contract verbatim or attach a copy of the agreement. (Dem. 5:9-14.) However, the cited case does not stand for that proposition. The court in FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 383 acknowledged that “the incorporation of a copy of the note alleges its terms” but did not limit other ways in which a complaint may adequately allege the terms of a contract. In reality, a complaint is sufficient if it pleads “the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language.” (Miles v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 394, 402.) Here, the complaint sets forth the legal effect of the contract: Plaintiff was to perform construction work on an apartment complex in exchange for compensation.

Defendant also takes issue with the fact that the complaint does not allege certain details of the contract, such as “the signing parties, the address of the work location, the total money owed under the agreement, and the construction work to be done.” (Dem. 5:21-25.) As to the signing parties, the complaint alleges that Defendant employed Plaintiff to perform the work and that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff wages owed. (Compl. ¶¶ BC-1, BC-2.) From this, it can be inferred that Plaintiff and Defendant are the parties to the agreement. As to the other details, their absence is not fatal at the pleading stage. Again, Plaintiff has set forth the essential terms of the agreement by specifying that Defendant hired him to perform construction work in exchange for compensation.

As to the remaining elements of a contract claim, Plaintiff has pled his own performance by alleging that Defendant failed to pay him for “work done.” (See Compl. ¶ BC-2.) It can be inferred that Plaintiff completed the work. Plaintiff alleges damages of $200,000. (Id., ¶ 10.)

In sum, each element of a breach of contract has been either expressly alleged or can be reasonably inferred from the facts. This is sufficient to place Defendant on notice of the issues. (See A.J. Fistes Corp., supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 695.) For the same reasons, the complaint is not uncertain.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.