Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2018-00061358-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 23, 2024

05/24/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2018-00061358-CU-OR-CTL SOUZA VS LEGGITT [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Roberta Leggitt's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted.

'A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and thus attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.

The court must determine whether the complaint states a cause of action assuming all of the alleged facts are true.' (Martinez v. San Diego County Credit Union (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1048, 1058 (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted).) Breach of Lease and Breach of Written Contract It is undisputed that Defendant did not sign the Lease Agreement or written agreement with Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant was a corporate officer of Rose Garden Senior Care ('Rose Garden') and was therefore bound by the terms of the lease. However, even assuming arguendo that Defendant was involved in Rose Garden, there is no basis for individual liability against a corporate officer by alleged contractual breaches committed by the corporation. Simply put, there is no written agreement under which Defendant undertook any obligations to Plaintiffs. As such, there is no possible liability.

Therefore, judgment is granted in favor of Defendant on the first and second causes of action in the complaint. Leave to amend these causes of action is denied.

Unjust Enrichment Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim against Defendant is based on the argument that Defendant benefitted, as an officer and director of Rose Garden, from Plaintiffs' $28,000 deposit because Rose Garden could not have secured a licensure without those funds. However, as discussed above, Rose Garden is a separate legal entity. There is no allegation that Defendant, rather than Rose Garden, received a direct monetary benefit from Plaintiffs' deposit into the subject account. Furthermore, as Defendant was not a party to the Lease Agreement, her alleged presence on the property without paying rent (an argument raised in the opposition papers rather than alleged in the complaint) is not a claim for unjust enrichment as she had no authorization to be on the property and no corresponding obligation to pay rent for her presence there. Therefore, judgment is granted in favor of Defendant on the third cause of action. Leave to amend this cause of action is denied.

Trespass and Nuisance As currently alleged, the actions resulting in the trespass and nuisance claims-moving into the property, using areas of the property not included in the lease and using the property as a 'personal racetrack and as a marijuana plant farm'-are actions attributed to co-Defendants Gregory Leggitt and Brandi Cargile.

There are no facts alleged as to actions taken by Defendant which constitute nuisance or trespass.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3119820  26 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SOUZA VS LEGGITT [IMAGED]  37-2018-00061358-CU-OR-CTL Therefore, judgment is granted in favor of Defendant on the fourth and fifth causes of action. Leave to amend these causes of action is granted.

In sum, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend as to the first, second and third causes of action and granted with leave to amend as to the fourth and fifth causes of action.

The deadline to file an amended complaint is June 7, 2024.

All evidentiary objections are overruled.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3119820  26