Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV13388, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13388    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 61

Defendant Milgard Manufacturing, LLC’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant to answer within 30 days.

I.                   DEMURRER

A demurrer should be sustained only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 430.30, et seq.) In particular, as is relevant here, a court should sustain a demurrer if a complaint does not allege facts that are legally sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See id. § 430.10, subd. (e).) As the Supreme Court held in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) Cal.3d 311: “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . . . Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Id. at p. 318; see also Hahn. v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 [“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. [Citation.]”)

“In determining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer … if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated.”  (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639.)

“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.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Such demurrers “are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848.)

A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1081.) The demurrer also may be sustained without leave to amend where the nature of the defects and previous unsuccessful attempts to plead render it probable plaintiff cannot state a cause of action. (Krawitz v. Rusch (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 957, 967.)

Defendant Milgard Manufacturing, LLC (Defendant) demurrers to the seventh cause of action for declaratory relief on the grounds that the allegations supporting that claim are identical to the allegations supporting the other claims for breach of contract and warranty. Defendant relies on authority stating, “where there is an accrued cause of action for an actual breach of contract or other wrongful act, declaratory relief may be denied.” (Demurrer at p. 2, quoting Osseous Technologies of America, Inc. v. DiscoveryOrtho Partners LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 357, 366.)

Defendant is incorrect. The same case authority that it presents states that even where an accrued cause of action exists at law, declaratory relief may be available upon the same facts where the plaintiff alleges “both continuing contractual relationships and future consequences for the conduct of the relationship that depended on the court's interpretation of the contracts at issue.” (Id. at p. 371.) Plaintiff here alleges a continuing contractual relationship based on Defendant’s assumption of the lifetime warranties incorporated into the prior settlement agreements, and Defendant’s ongoing refusal to comply with the obligations of that contract. (Complaint ¶¶ 12–13, 81) Plaintiff has therefore alleged an “actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1060.)

The demurrer is therefore OVERRULED.