Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01908, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01908    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      March 21, 2024                                               TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         BRIAN P. DALY, an individual, v. IDEAL LEGAL GROUP, INC. a California corporation; EVIE P. JEANG, an individual; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV01908

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Ideal Legal Group, Inc. and Evie P. Jeang

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Brian P. Daly

SERVICE:                              Filed January 19, 2024

OPPOSITION:                       Filed March 8, 2024

REPLY:                                   Filed March 14, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendants demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Brian P. Daly’s (“Plaintiff”) legal malpractice claims against Defendants Ideal Legal Group, Inc. and Evie P. Jeang (“Defendants”). Plaintiff filed this complaint on August 21, 2023, alleging two causes of action for (1) legal malpractice and (2) breach of fiduciary duty.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The parties requests for judicial notice are granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). However, the court does not take notice of the contested facts therein. “Although the existence of a document may be judicially noticeable, the truth of statements contained in the document and its proper interpretation are not subject to judicial notice if those matters are reasonably disputable.” (Unruh-Haxton v. Regents of University of California (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 343, 364.)

LEGAL STANDARD

In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc. section 430.30(a).)  A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)  The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants demurrer to the current case on the grounds that the same case already exists in another court. Defendant specifically argue that an identical case exists in the dissolution proceedings between Plaintiff and Hong Lu Zhang.

            “Since the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction and the statutory plea in abatement are mandatory and not discretionary judicial actions, these issues should be raised by demurrer where the issue appears on the face of the complaint and by answer where factual issues must be resolved.” (People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 771.)

                “A single cause of action cannot be the basis for more than one lawsuit. [Citation.] A demurrer raising this objection to a second action between the same parties ‘is strictly limited so that ... the defendant must show that the parties, cause of action, and issues are identical, and that the same evidence would support the judgment in each case.’ ” (Pitts v. City of Sacramento (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 853, 856.)

            Defendants arguments that the cases are identical are readily rejected. In the dissolution proceeding, a complaint in joinder was filed by Hong Lu Zhang, who is not a party to this present case, and the complaint alleged two causes of action for accounting and constructive trust. (RJN Exhibit 1.) Defendants’ contentions that Zhang argued that similar theories of recoveries applied is not subject to judicial notice nor complies with the requirements that the causes of action are identical. Thus, Defendants’ demurrer is overruled.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.

Dated:   March 21, 2024                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org