Judge H. Jay Ford, III, Case Number: 22SMCV00584, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 22SMCV00584, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00584 Hearing Date: February 15, 2024 Dept: O

Case Name: Gill v. Falakassa Law, P.C., et al.

Case No.:	22SMCV00584	Complaint Filed:	7-10-23
Hearing Date:	2-15-23	Discovery C/O:	N/A
Calendar No.:	9	Discovery Motion C/O:	N/A
POS:	OK	Trial Date:	None

SUBJECT: DEMURRER W/O MTS

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Falakassa Law, P.C and Joshua S. Falakassa

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Sarbjit Gill

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Falakassa Law, P.C and Joshua S. Falakassa’s Demurrer without Motion to Strike is OVERRULED as to the Plaintiff Sarbjit Gill’s 1^st cause of action for Negligence and 2^nd cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Defendants argue Plaintiff does not plead the required facts to states causes of action for Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty, plus the complaint is uncertain. “[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 173.)

Plaintiff pleads all the required elements of a claim for professional negligence, or attorney malpractice, for the 1^st cause of action. (See Compl., ¶¶ 5–9; see also CACI, 601; Schultz v. Harney (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1621. [“The elements of a cause of action for attorney malpractice are: (1) the duty of the attorney to use such skill, prudence and diligence as members of the profession commonly possess; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage.”] Plaintiff pleads all the required elements of the 2^nd cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. (See Compl., 5–8; see also Mendoza v. Continental Sales Co., Inc. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1405 [“The elements of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) its breach, and (3) damage proximately caused by that breach.”].) Plaintiff’s the complaint is not so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond