Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV18999, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV18999    Hearing Date: November 15, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

            Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED.

            On 7/30/2024, Plaintiffs Peter Stone, individually and as Trustee of the Stone Family Trust, and Barbara Stone, individually and as Trustee of the Stone Family Trust (collectively, Plaintiffs), failed suit against Green Pastures Group, Inc. and John M. Cohen (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) violation of Business and Professions Code section 7159; (2) negligence; (3) unfair business practices; and (4) breach of contract.

            On 9/30/2024, Defendant John Cohen (Defendant or Cohen) demurred to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Both Defendants moved to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cannot state a claim against him because Business and Professions Code section 7159 does not confer a private right of action, and because Plaintiffs do not have standing to assert claims against him in his personal capacity.

            As for the first contention, Defendant has not sufficiently established that Business and Professions Code section 7159 does not confer a private right of action. Indeed, the Court was able to locate a number of cases wherein parties maintained claims based on Business and Professions Code section 7159. (See e.g. Hinerfeld-Ward, Inc. v. Lipian (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 86, 94.)

            As for the second contention, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are alter-egos. (See Complaint ¶¶ 7-9.) As such, Plaintiffs have alleged a sufficient basis, at the pleading stage, to show that Defendant Cohen is personally liable for the conduct of Defendant Green Pastures Group, Inc. under the Parties’ contract.

            Moreover, after review, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ allegations to be sufficient to support each of the claims. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants contracted to provide renovation services, performed highly defective work, repeatedly failed to appear to remedy the work, and then caused more damage during their attempts at repair. (See Complaint.) Taken together, the allegations are more than sufficient at the pleading stage to support Plaintiffs’ claims. To the extent Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Agent’s Immunity Rule, Plaintiffs do not allege a conspiracy here, and thus this rule is not implicated.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is overruled.

Motion to Strike

            Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to support their punitive damages prayer. As set forth above, the Court overruled the demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. As such, Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient at this stage to show malice, oppression, or fraud. (Civ. Code §3294.)

            Defendants’ motion to strike is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  November    , 2024

   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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.