Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00438, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22LBCV00438    Hearing Date: March 9, 2023    Dept: S27

1.     Background Facts

Plaintiff, Interpool, Inc. dba Trac Intermodal filed this action against Defendants, Blue Flash Express, Inc., Daniel Rodriguez, and Juana Rodriguez for breach of contract, common counts, possession of personal property and damages, conversion, and injunctive relief.  Plaintiff alleges Defendants have rented chassis from Plaintiff, but have failed to remit payment for the chassis. 

 

2.     Demurrer

a.     Standard on Demurrer

A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party’s pleading. It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true, however improbable they may be.

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. Blank v. Kirwan 39 Cal.3d 311 (1985). No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no “speaking demurrers”). A demurrer is brought under CCP § 430.10 [grounds], § 430.30 [as to any matter on its face or from which judicial notice may be taken], and § 430.50(a) [can be taken to the entire complaint or any cause of action within]. Specifically, a demurrer may be brought per CCP § 430.10(e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. Per CCP §430.10(a) a demurrer may be brought where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Furthermore, demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. CCP § 430.10(f).

 

However, in construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations. Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn, 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769 (1987). And, if the facts pled in the complaint are inconsistent with facts which are incorporated by reference from exhibits attached to the complaint, the facts in the incorporated exhibits control. Further, irrespective of the name or label given to a cause of action by the plaintiff, a general demurrer must be overruled if the facts as pled in the body of the complaint state some valid claim for relief. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (CCP § 92(c).)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. Goodman v. Kennedy, 18 Cal.3d 335, 348 (1976). The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

 

Finally, CCP section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (CCP §430.41(a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (CCP §430.41(a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (CCP §430.41(a)(3).)

 

  1. Meet and Confer

Defense Counsel submitted a declaration in satisfaction of the meet and confer requirement.  

 

  1. Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff, with its opposition, requests judicial notice of a judgment in another case between it and Defendant.  The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the judgment exists and says what it purports to say; the judgment, however, has no bearing on the issue of whether or not Plaintiff has pleaded facts sufficient to state a cause of action against Defendant in this case. 

 

  1. Fourth Cause of Action, Possession of Personal Property

Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action is for possession of personal property.  Plaintiff alleges Defendants have obtained possession of Plaintiff’s chassis, but have failed to pay for said chassis, and have refused to return the chassis to Plaintiff.  Defendants demur to the cause of action, contending Plaintiff has not identified the cause of action pled.  Plaintiff, in opposition, contends the cause of action is one for replevin, commonly referred to as claim and delivery.  Defendants, in reply, contend this must be clarified.  The Court finds requiring the pleading to be amended to cure this minor defect is not in the interest of judicial economy; the parties should treat the cause of action as one for claim and delivery and proceed with the litigation.

 

  1. Sixth Cause of Action, Injunctive Relief

Defendants correctly note that injunctive relief is a remedy and not a cause of action.  Plaintiff’s cited cases in opposition to the demurrer also stand for this position.  That said, it is common practice to plead a request for injunctive relief by way of a cause of action, and the case of Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 405, 410, cited by Plaintiff in opposition to the demurrer, evidences the confusion.  The opinion therein states, “The elements of a cause of action for injunctive relief are (1) a tort or other wrongful act constituting a cause of action (see  Bank of America v. Williams (1948) 89 Cal.App.2d 21, 24 [ 200 P.2d 151]); and (2) irreparable injury, i.e., a factual showing that the wrongful act constitutes an actual or threatened injury to property or personal rights which cannot be compensated by an ordinary damage award. (See E. H. Renzel Co. v. Warehouse men's Union (1940) 16 Cal.2d 369, 373 [106 P.2d 1].)”

 

The Brownfield opinion basically states that the elements of a “cause of action” for injunctive relief are another cause of action plus irreparable harm.  The implication in the opinion is that the request for relief is often pled as its own cause of action, even though this is not technically correct.  The Court finds there is no harm in having the prayer for relief pled as a “cause of action” in the complaint, and the demurrer is overruled.

 

3.     Motion to Strike   

Defendants move to strike the cause of action for injunctive relief.  The grounds for the motion are the same as the grounds for demurrer, discussed and rejected above.  The motion to strike is denied for the reasons set forth above in connection with the analysis of the demurrer. 

4.     Conclusion

Defendants’ demurrer is overruled.  Their motion to strike is denied.  Defendants are ordered to file an answer to the complaint within ten days. 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  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.  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 any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.