Judge James A. Mangione, Case 37-2023-00005255-CU-BC-CTL 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2023-00005255-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024 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 Breach of Contract/Warranty Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00005255-CU-BC-CTL SCHNEIDER VS. SCHNEIDER [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs' Motion to Bifurcate Causes of Action is granted.

Defendant failed to file an opposition, thereby conceding the merits of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).) -- Plaintiffs' Demurrer to Defendant's Cross-Complaint is sustained with leave to amend in part and sustained without leave to amend in part.

The cross-complaint raises causes of action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings, common counts (employment/services), common counts (restitution after recession), promissory estoppel, implied contractual indemnity, contribution, unjust enrichment, fraud and declaratory relief.

The elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) there was a valid contract between the parties, (2) plaintiff performed or was excused from performing under the contract, (3) defendant breached the contract, (4) defendant's performance was not excused, and (5) plaintiff was harmed by defendant's conduct. (Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 811, 821.) Here, Defendant alleges that there was an oral contract related to employment between the parties. However, the precise terms of the contract, including the execution date, as well as the specific breach(s) purported to have been committed by Plaintiffs are unclear. Therefore, there are insufficient factual allegations to support a cause of action for breach of contract. Defendant's alternative pleading for promissory estoppel fails for the same reason. The demurrer on these causes of action is sustained with leave to amend.

The elements for a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are (1) Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract; (2) Plaintiff performed or was excused from performing his obligations under the contract; (3) All conditions required for defendant's performance had occurred or were excused; (4) Defendant's conduct prevented plaintiff from receiving the benefits under the contract; (5) defendant did not act fairly and in good faith; and (6) Plaintiff was harmed. (CACI Jury Instruction 325.) To support a separate cause of action for breach of the implied covenant, the allegations 'must show that the conduct of the defendant, whether or not it also constitutes a breach of a consensual contract term, demonstrates a failure or refusal to discharge contractual responsibilities, prompted not by an honest mistake, bad judgment or negligence but rather by a conscious and deliberate act, which unfairly frustrates the agreed common purposes and disappoints the reasonable expectations of the other party thereby depriving that party of the benefits of the agreement.' (Careau & Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3072510 5 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: SCHNEIDER VS. SCHNEIDER [E-FILE] 37-2023-00005255-CU-BC-CTL Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1395.) Here, Defendant has failed to allege facts demonstrating conduct beyond the purported contractual breach to support a separate cause of action for breach of the implied covenant. Therefore, the demurrer to these causes of action is sustained with leave to amend.

'A common count is not a specific cause of action, however; rather, it is a simplified form of pleading normally used to aver the existence of various forms of monetary indebtedness, including that arising from an alleged duty to make restitution under an assumpsit theory. When a common count is used as an alternative way of seeking the same recovery demanded in a specific cause of action, and is based on the same facts, the common count is demurrable if the cause of action is demurrable.' (Berryman v. Merit Property Management, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1559–1560 (quotation marks and alterations omitted).) Here, the common counts seek the same recovery as the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and is based on the same set of facts.

Therefore, the demurrer to these causes of action is sustained without leave to amend.

'In general, indemnity refers to 'the obligation resting on one party to make good a loss or damage another party has incurred.'' (Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1151, 1157.) '[I]mplied contractual indemnity is now viewed simply as 'a form of equitable indemnity.'' (Id.) Indemnity 'permit[s] a concurrent tortfeasor to obtain partial indemnity from other cotortfeasors on a comparative fault basis.' (Id. at 1164.) As the instant dispute does not involve a third-party seeking recovery against Defendant, indemnity is not at issue in this case. Therefore, the demurrer on this cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

'[T]here is no cause of action in California labeled unjust enrichment. [Citation.] Rather, an unjust enrichment claim is grounded in equitable principles of restitution.' (Sepanossian v. National Ready Mix Company, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 192, 206-07 (quotation marks omitted).) 'Unjust enrichment is generally an inapplicable basis for restitution where the parties have an enforceable express contract, however, restitution may be awarded in lieu of breach of contract damages when the parties had an express contract, but it was procured by fraud or is unenforceable or ineffective for some reason, or where the defendant obtained a benefit from the plaintiff by fraud, duress, conversion, or similar conduct.

[Citation.] Common law principles of restitution require a party to return a benefit when the retention of such benefit would unjustly enrich the recipient; a typical cause of action involving such remedy is quasi-contract.' (Id. at 207 (quotation marks omitted).) Here, it is unclear what the basis is for Defendant's unjust enrichment claim, i.e., whether it sounds in contract or fraud. Therefore, the demurrer on this cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.

Defendant's cause of action for contribution is duplicative of his causes of action for breach of contract.

Therefore, the demurrer on this cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

'The essential elements of a count for intentional misrepresentation are (1) a misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance [i.e. defraud], (4) actual and justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage.' (Chapman v. Skype Inc. (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 217, 230-31.) 'In California, fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice. . . . This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.' (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184.) Here, the cross-complaint lacks the requisite level of specificity needed to support a cause of action for fraud.

Therefore, the demurrer on these causes of action is sustained with leave to amend.

'Declaratory relief is available to a party 'who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 1060.) A complaint for declaratory relief is legally sufficient if it sets forth facts showing the existence of an actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties and requests that the rights and duties of the parties be adjudged by the court. . . .

[D]eclaratory relief operates to declare future rights, not to address past wrongs. (Monterey Coastkeeper v. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1, 13 (alterations omitted), as modified (Mar. 28, 2022), review denied (June 1, 2022).) Here, it is unclear what future rights and Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3072510 5 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: SCHNEIDER VS. SCHNEIDER [E-FILE] 37-2023-00005255-CU-BC-CTL obligations Defendant seeks to adjudicate. Therefore, the demurrer on this cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3072510 5