Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV04105, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 23STCV04105    Hearing Date: October 2, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Stefani J. Germanotta (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud by false promise; and (3) fraud by misrepresentation.

In relevant part, the FAC alleges: After two of Moving Defendant’s pet bulldogs were taken from her dog walker at gunpoint, Moving Defendant offered to pay a reward of $500,000 in exchange for the return of her dogs.  (See FAC ¶¶ 10, 12, 13.)

Plaintiff alleges in the FAC that she was “in no way involved” in the theft of Moving Defendant’s dogs and “had no knowledge of said theft or its planning before its occurrence.”  (FAC, ¶ 11, emphasis added.)  Notably, she never alleges that she was unaware that the bulldogs had been stolen after they were stolen or at the time that she received them.  Plaintiff also alleges that: “Plaintiff understood that Defendant LADY GAGA [Moving Defendant] would pay the reward money of $500,000.00 upon the safe return of her bulldogs ‘no questions asked’, regardless of the fact that said bulldogs were stolen from Defendant’s dogwalker.”  (FAC, ¶ 19, emphasis added.)  The FAC then alleges that after learning of Moving Defendant’s reward offer and with knowledge that the bulldogs were stolen from Moving Defendant, Plaintiff “took possession of Defendant’s bulldogs for the specific purpose of ensuring their protection and safely returning them to Defendants.”  (FAC, ¶ 20, emphasis added.)  Plaintiff then alleges that “On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff accepted Defendants’ unilateral offer by contacting Defendants and delivering LADY GAGA’s bulldogs to Defendants at the Los Angeles Police Department Olympic Community Police Station.”  (FAC, ¶ 21, emphasis added.)  The FAC proceeds with a recitation of the alleged damages and emotional distress Plaintiff claims she incurred as the result of having subsequently been investigated and charged and entering a “no contest” plea to the charge of receiving stolen property under California Penal Code § 496.  (FAC, ¶ 22-26.)

Moving Defendant filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) on the ground that the FAC fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            The Court has taken judicial notice of the documents included in the Request for Judicial Notice filed by Moving Defendant in support of her demurrer to Plaintiff’s original Complaint.[1]  While the Court takes judicial notice of the existence and legal effect of court documents, it does not take notice of the truth of the matters stated therein.  (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113.) 

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

The meet and confer requirement has been met.

Legal Standard

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law.  (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)  The court accepts as true all material factual allegations and affords them a liberal construction, but it does not consider conclusions of fact or law, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or judicially noticed facts.  (Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254.)  With respect to a demurrer, the complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded.  (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.)  A demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend if there exists no reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 

Impact of Plaintiff’s Criminal Conviction on Allegations of the Complaint

            Under Civil Code, Section 3517, no one can take advantage of his own wrong.  (Civ. Code § 3517.)  The unclean hands doctrine demands that a plaintiff act fairly in the matter for which he seeks a remedy.  (Mendoza v. Ruesga (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 270, 278-79.)  A plaintiff must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or be denied relief, regardless of the merits of the claim.  (Id. at 279.)  The unclean hands doctrine is not a legal or technical defense to be used as a shield against a particular element of a cause of action.  (Id.)  Rather, it is an equitable rationale for refusing a plaintiff relief where principles of fairness dictate that the plaintiff should not recover, regardless of the merits of their claim.  (Id.)  Whether the defense applies in particular circumstances depends on the analogous case law, the nature of the misconduct, and the relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries.  (Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42, 56.) 

Although the application of the unclean hands defense is usually a question of fact, under appropriate circumstances it may be determined as a matter of law.  (East West Bank v. Rio School Dist. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 742, 752.)  A party to a contract who acts wrongfully in entering or performing the contract is not entitled to thereafter benefit from their wrongdoing by seeking to enforce the contract.  (See Filet Menu, Inc. v. C.C.L. & G., Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 852, 864.) 

In relevant part, Penal Code, Section 496, subdivision (a) provides that every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Penal Code section 1170.  (Pen. Code § 496, subd. (a).)  A plea of guilty or nolo contendere admits all matters essential to the conviction.  (People v. Arwood (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 167, 171.)  The plea is not conclusive evidence; it is merely evidence against the party and the party may contest the truth of the matters admitted by his plea and explain why he entered the plea.  (Rusheen v. Drews (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 279, 284.)

In its July 10, 2023 order, the Court found that Plaintiff’s claims alleged in the original Complaint were barred under the unclean hands doctrine as a result of Plaintiff’s no contest plea to the Penal Code § 496 charge.  The Court finds that nothing alleged in the FAC changes this conclusion. 

In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges as an attempted explanation of why she entered a “no contest” plea to the criminal charge that “said plea afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to resolve her criminal case without admitting guilt and because Plaintiff, for a variety of reasons, felt that a resolution of the criminal complaint under terms of the prosecutor’s offer was in her ‘best interests.’”  (FAC, ¶ 28, emphasis in text.)  (See FAC ¶¶ 27-29.)  In other words, she accepted the plea because it was in her best interest, not because she was not guilty of the charge.  Notwithstanding the no contest plea, Plaintiff alleges that she “in fact, did not commit the act of receiving stolen property because she only received Defendants [sic] bulldogs for the purposes of ensuring their protection and safely returning them to Defendants in reliance on Defendants’ offer to pay a reward of $500,000.00 ‘no questions asked.’” (FAC, ¶ 29, emphasis added.)  In other words, she claims that she “did not commit the act or receiving stolen property” -- not because she did not know that the bulldogs were stolen property when she received them -- but because her alleged motivation was to return the stolen dogs safely to their rightful owner.  This motivation is not relevant to the analysis of this claim, as the FAC admits all elements of Plaintiff’s crime of receiving stolen property.

The Court specifically finds that the allegations in the FAC regarding the circumstances of Plaintiff’s no contest plea do not actually “contest the truth of the matters admitted by [her] plea” so much as they admit the truth of those matters.  While Plaintiff alleges that she was not involved in the prior planning or the commission of the theft of Moving Defendant’s bulldogs, she does not deny that at the time she claimed the reward she knew that they were stolen from Moving Defendant, nor does she deny that she received them with that knowledge.  In fact, Plaintiff alleges that she was aware that the bulldogs belonged to Moving Defendant, that they were stolen from Moving Defendant and that when Plaintiff received the bulldogs and contacted Moving Defendant she was attempting to obtain $500,000.00 from Moving Defendant for property she knew was stolen.  Although Plaintiff alleges that her motivation was to protect the bulldogs (and also to collect $500,000.00), this alleged motivation does not negate her guilt of the charge because she has admitted receiving the bulldogs with knowledge that they were stolen property.  If anything, the FAC makes even clearer than did the original Complaint that Plaintiff has unclean hands that prevent her from profiting from her actions. 

All three causes of action alleged in the FAC rely upon the allegations referenced above. (FAC, ¶¶ 9, 34 and 48.) The Court thus finds that all of Plaintiff’s claims as alleged in the FAC are barred under the unclean hands doctrine as a result of Plaintiff’s no contest plea to the Penal Code § 496 charge.  The Court also specifically finds that there exists no reasonable probability that the defects noted above can be cured by amendment.  Therefore, Moving Defendant’s Demurrer to the FAC is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

  Dated this 2nd day of October 2023