Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV18922, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV18922 Hearing Date: November 14, 2024 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
CARLOS BOYD, Plaintiff, v. MARCELA GROVES, et al., Defendants. |
Case No:
24STCV18922 Hearing Date: November 14, 2024 Calendar Number: 10 |
Defendants U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) and
Marcella Groves (“Groves”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) demur to the
Complaint filed by Plaintiff Carlos Boyd.
The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
Plaintiff shall have 20 days to amend his complaint following this issuance of
this order.
This is a breach of contract case.
Plaintiff alleges that he entered into a contract with U.S.
Bank. Plaintiff appears to allege that U.S. Bank and Groves conspired “to deny
Plaintiff access to his funds and refused to adhere to the terms and conditions
of the contract”. (Complaint ¶ 30.)
Plaintiff filed this action on July 30, 2024. The Complaint
raises claims for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing; and (3) fraudulent misrepresentation.
Groves was served on August 1, 2024. U.S. Bank was served on
August 1, 2024.
Moving Defendants demurred to the Complaint on September 24,
2024. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has
been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to
the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:
(a) The court has
no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.
(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the
legal capacity to sue.
(c) There is
another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.
(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.
(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action.
(f) The pleading is
uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and
unintelligible.
(g) In an action
founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the
contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.
(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)
As a general matter, in a demurrer proceeding, the defects
must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial
notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins.
Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleading
alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants,
Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) The court assumes the truth
of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Ibid.) The only issue a demurrer is
concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of
action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)
Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be
allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335,
348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be
amended successfully. (Ibid.;
Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.) However, “[i]f
there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause
of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist.
(1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).
Plaintiff alleges that he entered into an oral contract with
U.S. Bank. Plaintiff appears to allege that U.S. Bank and Groves conspired “to
deny Plaintiff access to his funds and refused to adhere to the terms and
conditions of the contract”. (Complaint ¶ 30.)
This is the only conduct that Plaintiff alleges in the
Complaint. The remainder of Plaintiff’s complaint consists of statements of
legal principles and allegations related to the identities of the parties.
Plaintiff does not allege what the terms of the contract
were or which terms of the contract Defendants breached. Plaintiff does appear
to allege that he was damaged by U.S. Bank’s alleged wrongful retention of
Plaintiff’s funds. Without pleading the essential contract terms and facts
showing Defendants’ alleged breach, Plaintiff has not pled the entirety of a
claim for breach of contract.
The Court therefore sustains the demurrer to this claim with
leave to amend.
“A breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing involves something beyond breach of the contractual duty itself and it
has been held that bad faith implies unfair dealing rather than mistaken
judgment.” (Careau & Co. v. Security
Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1394.) “If the
allegations do not go beyond the statement of a mere contract breach and,
relying on the same alleged acts, simply seek the same damages or other relief
already claimed in a companion contract cause of action, they may be
disregarded as superfluous as no additional claim is actually stated … [T]he
only justification for asserting a separate cause of action for breach of the
implied covenant is to obtain a tort recovery.” (Id. at pp. 1394-1395.) To recover in tort for breach of the implied
covenant, the defendant must “have acted unreasonably or without proper cause.”
(Id. at p. 1395 [citations and
italics omitted].)
Here, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a breach of
contract, nor has Plaintiff alleged facts showing unreasonable conduct. If
Plaintiff’s claim is based on Defendants’ alleged retention of Plaintiff’s
funds, Plaintiff must factually explain what Defendants did and why that was
legally unreasonable or without proper legal cause.
The Court sustains the demurrer to this claim with leave to
amend.
The facts constituting the alleged fraud must be alleged
factually and specifically as to every element of fraud, as the policy of
“liberal construction” of the pleadings will not ordinarily be invoked. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12
Cal.4th 631, 645.) “[Fraud’s] particularity requirement necessitates pleading
facts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the
representations were tendered.’ [Citation.]” (Stansfield v. Starkey
(1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.) “Less specificity is required when it appears
from the nature of the allegations that the defendant must necessarily possess
full information concerning the facts of the controversy.” (Wald v. TruSpeed
Motorcars, LLC (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 378, 394 [quotation marks omitted].)
To properly allege fraud against a corporation, the
plaintiffs must plead the names of the persons allegedly making the false
representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said
or wrote, and when it was said or written. (Tarmann
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.)
Plaintiff’s only factual allegation is that Groves “uses
fraud to obtain the transfer of funds”. (Complaint ¶ 33.) Plaintiff has not
alleged the elements of fraud. Nor has Plaintiff alleged specific facts
showing that each of those elements are met . This includes “how, when, where,
to whom, and by what means” the fraudulent statements or representations were made.
(Stansfield v. Starkey, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 73.) This
also requires specific facts showing that Defendants know that the
representations were false, facts showing what Plaintiff did or did not do in
reliance on the representations, and facts showing how Plaintiff was damaged as
a result of his reliance on the representations.
The Court sustains the demurrer to this claim with leave to
amend.