Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV14872, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14872    Hearing Date: September 29, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Joe Bartolome (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

            The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers.  No reply papers were filed.  Any reply papers were required to have been filed and served at least five court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b). 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) negligence; and (2) breach of fiduciary duty and emotional distress.

In relevant part, the Complaint alleges: within the past three years, Plaintiff and Moving Defendant entered into a written agreement (the “Lease Agreement”) for Plaintiff to lease equipment from Moving Defendant pursuant to a three-year loan.  (Complaint ¶ 7.)  On around February 3, 2022, Plaintiff informed Moving Defendant that he was not interested in extending the Lease Agreement and that the Lease Agreement would expire on December 30, 2022.  (Complaint ¶ 8.)  During this period, monthly payments were withdrawn from Plaintiff’s bank account.  (Id.)  Moving Defendant thereafter apparently continued to withdraw monthly payments.  (See Complaint ¶ 9.)

Moving Defendant filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain.

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.) 

Demurrers 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.)  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.  (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.)

First Cause of Action

            The elements of negligence are: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages. (Peredia v. HR Mobile Services, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.) 

The elements of a claim for breach of contract are: (1) the contract; (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) the defendant’s breach; and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom.  (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)  A plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language.  (Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Insurance Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198-99.) 

            Although the case caption states that the Complaint alleges negligence, the first cause of action is not labelled and appears to be rooted in the alleged breach of the Lease Agreement.  The allegations, however, do not sufficiently allege the elements of either cause of action.  The Court therefore SUSTAINS the Demurrer to the first cause of action with 20 days leave to amend.

Second Cause of Action

To state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship; (2) breach of that relationship; and (3) damages.  (Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. Hyon (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1509.) 

A fiduciary relationship is any relation existing between parties to a transaction wherein one of the parties is in duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other party.  (Wolf v. Superior Court (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 25, 29.)  Such a relation ordinarily arises where a confidence is reposed by one person in the integrity of another, and in such a relation the party in whom the confidence is reposed, if he voluntarily accepts or assumes to accept the confidence, can take no advantage from his acts relating to the interest of the other party without the latter's knowledge or consent.  (Id.)  Before a person can be charged with a fiduciary obligation, he must either knowingly undertake to act on behalf and for the benefit of another or must enter into a relationship which imposes that undertaking as a matter of law.  (Hasso v. Hapke (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 107, 140.) 

The Complaint alleges that Moving Defendant owed Plaintiff a fiduciary duty as an attorney, but it is not clear if Moving Defendant and Plaintiff were in an attorney-client relationship.  The Court agrees with Moving Defendant that the claim is ambiguous and fails to allege a basis for relief.  The Court therefore SUSTAINS the Demurrer to the second cause of action with 20 days 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 29th day of September 2023