Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV34045, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34045    Hearing Date: August 8, 2023    Dept: 68

Walters Wholesale Electric Co. vs. Current Electric, Inc., et al.; Case No. 22STCV34045

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendant Current Electric, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Cross-Complainant Satila America Corporation

Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

            This matter arises out of a troubled construction project at a property owned by Cross-Complainant Satila America Corporation (Satila). Satila hired Cross-Defendant Current Electric (Current) to engage in electrical installation at the worksite. During construction, Satila allegedly stopped paying for Current’s materials, which led Plaintiff Walters Wholesale Electric Co. (Walters Wholesale) to file the Complaint against Current. Current then filed a Cross-Complaint against Satila, which then filed the present cross-complaint against Current.

            Satila’s First Amended Cross-Complaint (FACC) has six causes of action, and it is the Fourth Cause of Action for Quantum Meruit to which Current demurs. Current argues that this cause of action is unintelligible. Current argues that it is unclear what services Satila has provided Current that would require Current to reimburse Satila.

Satila filed its FACC on June 8, 2023. Current filed its demurrer on July 11, 2023. No opposition has been filed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. The Demurrer

As a general matter, in a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Id.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.) However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).

1. Fourth Cause of Action for Quantum Meruit

Current demurs to this cause of action on the basis that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for quantum meruit and because it is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible.

“To recover on a claim for the reasonable value of services under a quantum meruit theory, a plaintiff must establish both that he or she was acting pursuant to either an express or implied request for services from the defendant and that the services rendered were intended to and did benefit the defendant.” (Ochs v. PacifiCare of California (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 782. 794.) While it is generally true that “claims using common counts is good against special or general demurrers …” it is equally true that the “essential allegations of a common count are ‘(1) the statement of indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration, i.e., goods sold, work done, etc., and (3) nonpayment.” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460 [internal citations omitted].)

Satila’s FACC is ambiguous. Satila has not provided information concerning a statement of indebtedness in a certain sum, or the consideration that was provided by it, or how it should have been the recipient of the nonpayment. Satila says that it is owed the same amount that is owed to Walters Wholesale, but it does not provide any reasoning for this statement. (FACC, ¶ 25.)

It appears that Cross-Complainant Satila America Corporation has not opposed with the first demurrer or this second demurrer.  The Court assumes that if it believed that a claim could be validly stated it would have either opposed the demurrer or asked for leave to amend, or both.  The Court fails to see any basis for a valid amendment.  Absent some explanation at the hearing, the Court is inclined to deny leave to amend.

Current’s demurrer to Satila Fourth Cause of Action is sustained without leave to amend.

III. ORDER

1.    Current’s Demurrer to Satila’s Fourth Cause of Action is sustained without leave to amend.