Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: BC623542, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: February 17, 2023

Case Name: Urban Professional Builders, Inc. v. Caliba, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 22STCV02345

Matter: Demurrer

Moving Party: Plaintiff Urban Professional Builders, Inc. 

Responding Party: Defendant Caliba, Inc.

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Demurrer is overruled.

Moving party 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 21, 2022, Caliba, Inc. (“Caliba”) filed a Cross-Complaint against Urban Professional Builders, Inc. (“Urban”) for (1) breach of oral contract, (2) money had and received, (3) an accounting, and (4) unjust enrichment.  Caliba alleges that it was the general contractor for various projects and that it entered into an agreement with Urban in which Urban would supervise/manage the aforementioned projects.  Caliba alleges that “on or about late 2020 and early 2021, the CrossDefendants, and each of them, breached the Agreement by, among other things, overcharging Caliba for the physical work actually performed by Urban on the subject projects, and authorizing and accepting draws for amounts that exceeded the reasonable cost of the work actually performed by Urban. Caliba is further informed and believes that Urban breached the subject Agreement by authorizing and accepting payments for amounts that Urban sought to recover in lieu of profitsharing with Caliba, as Urban was aware that the subject projects were not turning a profit, despite Urban’s own representations that it would recover a profit for Caliba on the subject projects, or otherwise accept such a loss.”

Urban now demurs to 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.)

Urban argues, “[t]he two ‘causes of action’ alleged against UPB in the Cross-Complaint—the third cause of action for ‘accounting’ and the fourth cause of action for ‘unjust enrichment’—fail to state claims for relief. Under black letter California law, these are not causes of action entitling a plaintiff to relief; at most, they are remedies.”

This lacks merit.  The Cross-Complaint states a claim in quasi-contract for which unjust enrichment could be a remedy.  Further, labels are not determinative, and an accounting could be requested in connection with Caliba’s other causes of action.

The Demurrer is overruled.  An answer is to be filed within twenty days.

Moving party 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.