Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV04242, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV04242    Hearing Date: March 7, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Prime/Frit El Monte, LLC (“Prime”) alleges that on August 19, 2021, landlord Prime entered into a written Lease Agreement with Defendant La Michoacana Plus Ice Cream Parlor Corp. dba La Michoacana Plus (“LMP”) for the premises located at 11331 Thienes Ave., Suite A, South El Monte, CA 91733.  Prime alleges that LMP breached the Lease Agreement by failing to pay the full amount of rent due and owing. 

The complaint, filed September 12, 2024, alleges a cause of action for breach of lease.   

B.     Cross-Complaint

On December 5, 2024, La Michoacana Plus Ice Cream Parlor Corp. filed a cross-complaint against Prime for: (1) breach of written contract; (2) breach of oral contract; (3) conversion; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) violation of Penal Code, § 496(c); and (6) declaratory relief.

C.     Motion on Calendar

On January 3, 2025, Prime filed a demurrer to the cross-complaint. 

On February 24, 2025, LMP filed an opposition brief.

On February 27, 2025, Prime filed a reply brief.

DISCUSSION  

            Prime demurs to the 4^th cause of action for unjust enrichment in the cross-complaint, arguing that unjust enrichment is not a cause of action. 

Under California law, unjust enrichment is not a cause of action.  (Melchior v. New Line Productions, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 779, 794.)  Instead, it is the failure to make restitution under circumstances where it is equitable to do so.  (Id.)  Unjust enrichment is a general principle, underlying various legal doctrines and remedies, rather than a remedy itself.  (Id.)  It is synonymous with restitution.  (Id.)  This is the basis for the general rule in California, which finds that unjust enrichment is not a cause of action, but a claim for restitution.  (Hill v. Roll Int'l Corp. (2011) 195 Cal. App. 4th 1295, 1307.)

The Court sustains the demurrer to the 4^th cause of action because there is no cause of action for unjust enrichment.  Further, it is not possible to correct this by amendment because unjust enrichment is not a cause of action.  Accordingly, the Court will not grant leave to amend.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Prime/Frit El Monte, LLC’s demurrer to the 4^th cause of action in the cross-complaint is sustained without leave to amend.  

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: March 7, 2025                                                         ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court