Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV07935, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07935    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff Eastern Funding LLC filed this action against Defendants G2 Business Group, Inc. and Fred Oshin Gregorian, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of promissory note and security agreement and (2) breach of guaranty.

            The action stems from a 2016 promissory note (Note) that Plaintiff issued to Defendant G2. The note was secured by certain personal property and guaranteed by Defendant Gregorian. Plaintiff alleges that the Note was modified in May 2018, April 2019, March 2020, and July 2020. Plaintiff alleges that G2 defaulted on the loan in February 2022. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks recovery of the remaining balance of $793,512.92 plus interest, late charges, and attorneys’ fees.

            On May 2, 2023, the Court entered dismissal as against Defendant G2 per Plaintiff’s request.

            On January 16, 2024, Defendant Gregorian answered the complaint in pro per. The answer responds to each allegation from the complaint and asserts 26 affirmative defenses.

            On February 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant demurrer to Defendant Gregorian’s answer.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether a pleading states a cause of action or defense. (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 pleading, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action or defense. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

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 Plaintiff has complied with the meet and confer requirement. (See Alper Decl.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff argues that the answer fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a defense and is uncertain. However, Defendant’s answer pleads ultimate facts sufficient to inform Plaintiff of the nature of the affirmative defenses. Any remaining ambiguities may be resolved in discovery. (See Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.) A pleading need not be a “model of clarity” to survive demurrer. (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.)

CONCLUSION