Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: BC623542, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: January 13, 2023

Case Name: AMAG, Inc. v. Cubas, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV38459

Matter: Demurrer

Moving Party: Cross-Defendants Marc Cubas, individually and DBA Mint Supply and 

Distribution; Injected Arts, Inc.; Zambrano Law Corporation; Sydney Cubas; Cathy Cubas; Nadia Nino; Mara Cubas; Dominic Cubas; Ashley Cubas; Branding Amazing; Vanderbilt Wholesalers; and Strawberry Visual Components, joined by Omar Zambrano

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Demurrer is sustained.  Leave to amend is denied.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On October 19, 2021, Plaintiff AMAG, Inc. filed the operative Complaint for (1) fraudulent transfer, (2) misrepresentation, (3) constructive fraud, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, and (5) declaratory relief.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Vlaze Media Networks, Inc. sought to avoid the judgment against it in case no. BC587406 by fraudulently transferring certain assets to other Defendants or with the help of the other Defendants.  

On September 9, 2022, Anastasiia Arseneva, a pro per litigant, filed a Cross-Complaint for (1) breach of contract, (2) quantum meruit, (3) fraud, (4) violation of Pen. Code §§ 528.5, 529, (5) invasion of privacy, (6) quiet title, and (7) declaratory relief.

Cross-Defendants Marc Cubas, Injected Arts, Inc., Zambrano Law Corporation, Sydney Cubas, Cathy Cubas, Nadia Nino, Mara Cubas, Dominic Cubas, Ashley Cubas, Branding Amazing, Vanderbilt Wholesalers, and Strawberry Visual Components, joined by Omar Zambrano, demur to all causes of action in the Cross-Complaint for failure to state sufficient facts.  

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, and “treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)  “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.”  (Hahn v. Mirda¿(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)  It is error “to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment.”  (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist.¿(1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

As there is no opposition, the subject causes of action are deemed abandoned.  (Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20.)  The Demurrer is sustained.  Leave to amend is denied.  The Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.