Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV4105, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV4105    Hearing Date: July 10, 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

Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud by false promise; and (3) fraud by misrepresentation. 

In relevant part, the Complaint alleges: After two of her pet dogs were stolen at gunpoint, Moving Defendant offered to pay a reward of $500,000 in exchange for the return of her dogs.  (See Complaint ¶¶ 10-11.)  On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff contacted Moving Defendant and delivered the dogs to a police station.  (Complaint ¶ 14.)  Moving Defendant subsequently refused Plaintiff’s demand for the $500,000 reward.  (Complaint ¶¶ 16-17.)

On June 9, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to the Complaint on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Moving Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.  While the Court takes judicial notice of the existence 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.) 

The Demurrer primarily argues that judicially noticeable facts demonstrate that Plaintiff is precluded from recovering on any of her claims because of her involvement in the theft of Moving Defendant’s dogs and that the Complaint is therefore legally insufficient in its entirety.  On October 27, 2021, Plaintiff was indicted by a grand jury for receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) and being an accessory after the fact for her involvement in receiving and withholding Moving Defendant’s dogs.  (See RJN, Exhibit 2.)  On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff entered a plea of nolo contendere and was convicted for violating Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a).  (See RJN, Exhibit 4.)[1]

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).)  In addition, under Penal Code section 496, subdivision (c), any person who has been injured by a violation of subdivision (a) may bring an action for three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees.  (Pen. Code § 496, subd. (c).)  A plea of guilty or nolo contendere admits all matters essential to the conviction.  (People v. Arwood (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 167, 171.)

It is not reasonably disputed that Plaintiff was convicted of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) in connection with the criminal proceeding concerning the theft of Moving Defendant’s dogs.  The allegations in the Complaint are directly related to wrongful conduct that Plaintiff pleaded guilty to in the criminal proceeding.  Under the circumstances, Plaintiff’s successful pursuit of her current claims would allow her to benefit from her admitted wrongdoing.  In addition, Penal Code section 496, subdivision (c) allows an injured party to pursue a civil action to recover damages.  Impliedly, this provision negates Plaintiff’s potential damages because she would be required to pay restitution to Moving Defendant. 

The Court therefore SUSTAINS the Demurrer with 20 days leave to amend.  If Plaintiff files an amended pleading that is successfully challenged by a demurrer, the Court will consider denying Plaintiff further 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 10th day of July 2023