Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 19STCV39580, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV39580    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ demurrer to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs’ demurrer to the third cause of action is OVERRULED.

            The first cause of action is ordered dismissed, with prejudice.

On November 4, 2019, Plaintiffs Terry Herrera and Teodora Herrera (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Full Circle Real Estate Solutions, Inc. (Full Circle), the Mum Group, Marvin U. Mangabat, and Erik Lederman. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (FAC), alleging: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) concealment; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) conversion; (5) rescission of contract; (6) cancellation of written instrument; (7) quiet title; (8) violation of Civil Code sections 2945, et seq.; (9) financial elder abuse; and (10) declaratory relief. 

            On 10/7/2022, Massis Tarbinian and Houry Kelian (Intervenors) were granted leave to file a Complaint in Intervention, alleging: (1) unjust enrichment; (2) quiet title; and (3) declaratory relief.

            Now, Plaintiffs demur to the first and third causes of action of the Complaint in Intervention.

Discussion 

            Plaintiffs argue that the Intervenors cannot state a claim for unjust enrichment or declaratory relief.

            As for unjust enrichment, Plaintiffs argue that unjust enrichment is not a cause of action in California. To the extent the Intervenors seeks restitution, Plaintiffs contend that they “have not received one dime of the monies that Intervenors paid for the Property, and the Complaint does not allege otherwise.” (Motion, 4: 16-17.)

            The Court agrees. In California, there is no cause of action for unjust enrichment. (See Rutherford Holdings LLC v. Plaza Del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 221, 231; Levine v. Blue Shield of California (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1138.) The Court notes that while there are cases recognizing an unjust enrichment claim under California law, the more recent cases of Rutherford Holdings and Levine have confirmed that unjust enrichment is not a cause of action in California. While Courts have construed unjust enrichment claims as quasi-contract claims seeking restitution, the Intervenors do not alleged a quasi-contract or any basis for restitution damages.

            In opposition, the Intervenors extensively argue that unjust enrichment can be a stand-alone cause of action. However, they do not set forth persuasive argument that could show that they seek restitution or relief not embraced by their quiet title cause of action. As such, they have not alleged facts which could state a claim for unjust enrichment.

            As for declaratory relief, Plaintiffs argue that this cause of action is wholly duplicative in that it embraces the same relief sought in the quiet title cause of action. The Court disagrees. The declaratory relief cause of action seeks a determination of title for the underlying property. However, it seeks additional, alternative relief in the event that the Intervenors are not awarded full ownership of the Subject Property.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained, without leave to amend. Plaintiff’s demurrer to the third cause of action is overruled.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.