Judge Joel R Wohlfeil, Case Number: 37-2022-00013940-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2022-00013940-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 17, 2024

04/19/2024 09:00:00 AM C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2022-00013940-CU-BC-CTL BEST VS TANKSLEY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 02/01/2024

1. The special and general Demurrer (ROA # 112) of Defendants HOUSE OF SEVEN GABLES REAL ESTATE, INC. and JASON CROSWELL (collectively 'Defendants') to cause of action 5 in the Fifth Amended Complaint ('FAC') filed by Plaintiff NATHANIEL BEST ('Plaintiff'), is SUSTAINED.

Leave to amend to re-allege this cause of action will not be permitted.

A special Demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained where the pleading is fatally ambiguous or unintelligible. Code Civ. Proc. 430.10(f).

In this case, cause of action 5 is unintelligible because it is not clear what legal claim or theory is alleged.

This cause of action is labelled as 'Intentional Tort.' However, fraud causes of action are already alleged. The allegations in this cause of action appear to allege a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a breach of fiduciary duty. Neither of these breaches fall under the category of an 'intentional tort.' Regarding the general Demurrer, the opposition contends this cause of action alleges intentional interference with contract. Tortious interference with contractual relations requires: (1) the existence of a valid contract between Plaintiff and a third party; (2) Defendant's knowledge of that contract; (3) Defendant's intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage. Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal. 5th 1130, 1141.

A contracting party cannot be held liable in tort for conspiracy to interfere with its own contract. Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 503, 514. Similarly, 'the representative of a contracting party may not be held liable for the tort of interfering with its principal's contract ....' Mintz v. Blue Cross of California (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 1594, 1607. Such an agent is not 'a stranger' to the contract and cannot state a cause of action. Id. at 1603.

The Fifth Amended Complaint alleges Plaintiff entered into a real estate purchase contract with the seller (Relief Housing Solution). As alleged, Defendants Croswell and Seven Gables were the real estate agent / broker representing the seller. These Defendants were agents acting on behalf of a contracting party. As a result, they cannot be liable for interfering with the purchase agreement and the general Demurrer is sustained for this reason.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3083699 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: BEST VS TANKSLEY [IMAGED] 37-2022-00013940-CU-BC-CTL _____ 2. The general Demurrer (ROA # 114) of Defendants Alysha Tanksley, Rebecca Monge, and Professional Realty (collectively 'Defendants' or 'PRSI') to the Fifth Cause of Action for Intentional Tort in the Fifth Amended Complaint ('5AC') by Plaintiff Nathaniel Best's ('Plaintiff'), is SUSTAINED.

Leave to amend to re-allege this cause of action will not be permitted.

Defendants argue this cause of action fails because the purchase agreement is not attached to the pleading.

In an action based on a written contract, Plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language. Construction Protective Servs., Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 189, 198, 199.

Defendants cite Otworth v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. (1985) 166 Cal. App. 3d 452 for the contention that the contract terms must be set out verbatim in the body of a complaint or a copy must be attached and incorporated by reference.

Otworth was relying on Wise v. Southern Pacific Co. (1963) 223 Cal. App. 2d 50, 59.

However, it appears that the Court in Otworth misread the opinion in Wise v. Southern Pac. Co. (1963) 223 Cal. App. 2d 50.

Wise states that when a written instrument in the foundation of a cause of action, it may be pled by attaching a copy. Id. at 59 (emphasis added).

Wise stated: '[a]ll that is required of a plaintiff . . . is that he set forth in his complaint the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant of the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.' Id. at 63 (emphasis added).

Defendants' argument is not persuasive because the Fifth Amended Complaint alleges the essential terms of the purchase agreement. It is not necessary to attach the agreement.

The opposition contends this cause of action alleges intentional interference with contract. Tortious interference with contractual relations requires: (1) the existence of a valid contract between Plaintiff and a third party; (2) Defendant's knowledge of that contract; (3) Defendant's intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage. Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal. 5th 1130, 1141.

This Demurrer is sustained for the independent reason that a contracting party cannot be held liable in tort for conspiracy to interfere with its own contract. Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 503, 514.

Similarly, 'the representative of a contracting party may not be held liable for the tort of interfering with its principal's contract ....' Mintz v. Blue Cross of California (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 1594, 1607.

Such an agent is not 'a stranger' to the contract and cannot state a cause of action. Id. at 1603.

The Fifth Amended Complaint in this action alleges that Plaintiff entered into a real estate purchase contract with the seller (Relief Housing Solution). As alleged, Defendants Tanksley, Monge and Professional Realty were the real estate agent / broker representing Plaintiff for the home purchase.

Plaintiff cannot sue his own agent for interfering with the purchase agreement. As these Defendants Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3083699 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: BEST VS TANKSLEY [IMAGED] 37-2022-00013940-CU-BC-CTL were agents acting on behalf of a contracting party, they cannot be liable for interfering with the purchase agreement.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3083699