Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 25SMCV00162, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25SMCV00162    Hearing Date: June 5, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Smith v. Yu, Case no. 25SMCV00162

Hearing date June 5, 2025

Defendant Yu’s Demurrer to the Complaint

Plaintiff Smith sues defendant Yu for declaratory relief as to his ownership interest of a dog, which he alleges defendant took possession of. Defendant demurs, asserting no agreement to share the dog was made, and no legal authority exists to split ownership. Plaintiff opposes.

“The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420. A complaint “is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts” Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, but plaintiff must set forth the essential facts of the case “with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [the] defendant with the nature, source and extent” of the plaintiff’s claim. Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099. In reviewing the legal sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, a court will treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; C & H Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1062.

The two essential elements for declaratory relief are: “(1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to [plaintiff’s] rights or obligations.” Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital (1989) 28 Cal.App.3d 405, 410.

Plaintiff alleges the parties jointly purchased the dog in 2019, and defendant has had sole possession since March 2024. Compl. paras. 4-5, 24. Plaintiff alleges he paid 50% of the purchase price and subsequent care costs “with the understanding that they [the parties] would share ownership.” Compl. para. 8. Plaintiff alleges “defendant contends she is the sole registered owner of the dog.” Id. Plaintiff alleges a controversy exists as to the parties’ rights to the dog. Compl. paras. 8, 10.

Defendant argues plaintiff cannot state a legal basis for joint ownership. A declaratory relief claim is subject to general demurrer where it relates to a substantive claim which is invalid as a matter of law. See Ball v. FleetBoston Fin’l Corp. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 794, 800.

Plaintiff states a proper subject for declaratory relief, as the dog is property. See Cal. Civ. Code §§654-655, 669, 680. However, plaintiff does not allege a contractual agreement or other legal basis, implicit or explicit, written or oral, for joint ownership of the dog. Without such basis, and in light of defendant’s status as sole registered owner, plaintiff’s claims are insufficient to establish an actual controversy.

Plaintiff’s alleged understanding (see para. 8) is not a legal agreement; there must a basis for ownership asserted, i.e., a contract, to sustain the claim for declaratory relief. SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.