Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00015974-CU-CO-CTL, Date: 2023-12-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 21, 2023

12/22/2023  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Contract - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00015974-CU-CO-CTL LOUIS VS GSG PL INC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 10/20/2023

The demurrer to the second amended complaint is OVERRULED.

A. As an initial matter, the court notes that plaintiff filed the SAC (ROA 28) without seeking leave of court or obtaining a stipulation from defendants. See Code Civ. Proc. § 472(a); Hedwall v. PCMV, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 564, 574-75. Nevertheless, the court exercises its discretion and will consider the unauthorized pleading in ruling on the demurrer. See Keeble v. Brown (1954) 123 Cal.2d 126, 129 ('The trial court has a wide discretion in the granting of amendments to pleadings.'); see also Kapitanski v. Von's Grocery Co. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32 ('Rigid rule following is not always consistent with a court's function to see that justice is done.').

B. Turning to the merits, the demurrer to the entire SAC based on the statute of limitations is overruled.

A two-year statute of limitations period governs claims for breach of oral contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. See Code Civ. Proc. § 339(1); see also Bank of New York Mellon v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 935, 943. However, 'for a demurrer based on the statute of limitations to be sustained, the untimeliness of the lawsuit must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint and matters judicially noticed.' Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408, 419. '[I]t is not enough that the complaint shows that the action may be barred.' Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403.

Here, while plaintiff alleges that he received a 'noncommittal response' from defendants regarding the issue of attorney's fees, he also alleges that he only realized that defendants 'did not in fact intend to pay him back' on September 16, 2022. (SAC at ¶¶ 40, 47.) Moreover, sufficient facts have been pled to support the application of equitable estoppel. (See SAC at ¶¶ 42-46.). Accordingly, it is not clear from the SAC that plaintiff's claims are untimely.

C. The demurrer to count 1 is overruled.

'Business and Professions Code section 6148 generally requires attorneys in noncontingent fee cases to procure signed, written contracts from clients reflecting rates, fees, and charges whenever it is reasonably foreseeable that their legal expenses will exceed $1,000.' Huskinson & Brown v. Wolf (2004) 32 Cal.4th 453, 460. Subdivision (d) of the statute sets forth four discrete situations in which no written agreement is required.

In this case, liberally construing the SAC, the court finds that sufficient facts have been pled showing that Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3039564  12 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  LOUIS VS GSG PL INC [E-FILE]  37-2023-00015974-CU-CO-CTL one or more of the statutory exceptions to section 6148 applies. (See SAC at ¶¶ 2, 7, 21, 49-51.) Thus, the court is unable to conclude on this limited record that the contract for legal services is barred by section 6148.

D. The demurrers to counts 2 and 3 are overruled.

Sufficient facts have been pled to state claims for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. '[W]here services have been rendered under a contract which is unenforceable because not in writing, an action generally will lie upon a common count for quantum meruit.' Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch v. Berwald (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 990, 996. Whether plaintiff has received compensation for his services is a factual dispute that cannot be resolved on demurrer. See Ramsden v. Western Union (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 873, 879 ('A demurrer is simply not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts.').

E. The moving defendants must file and serve an answer to the SAC by January 2, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3039564  12