Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STCV10343, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STCV10343, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10343 Hearing Date: December 13, 2023 Dept: 26

Cazares, et al. v. Central Storage, Inc., et al.

DEMURRER; RECLASSIFY

(CCP §§ 430.10, et seq. and 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Central Storage, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO THE SECOND AND FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION, AND OVERRULED AS TO THE FIRST AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY THE ACTION TO THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT IS DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On March 25, 2022, Plaintiffs Marcus Cazares and Victoria Murdock (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Central Storage, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on June 27, 2023. At the case management conference on June 29, 2023, the Court set motions to strike or grant judgment on the pleadings on its own motion “because the case fails to state a cause of action as a matter of law with the exception of a possible one-month overpay for a month without adequate notice meaning about $100 due.” (Minute Order, 06/29/23.) The Court also set a Walker hearing for the same date to transfer the action to the limited jurisdiction court. (Ibid.) On July 20, 2023, the action was transferred to a limited jurisdiction court. (Minute Order, 07/20/23.)

Following transfer, the limited jurisdiction court held a trial setting conference and noted that no response had been filed to the First Amended Complaint. (Minute Order, 08/31/23.) The Court set an order to show cause regarding filing Defendant’s answer for November 2, 2023. (Ibid.) On October 31, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Demurrer, or in the alternative, Motion to Reclassify. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 1, 2023 and Defendant replied on December 7, 2023.

Discussion

None of the papers related to this motion, including the First Amended Complaint, Demurrer, opposition, and reply, are models of clarity. It appears that the First Amended Complaint alleges cause of action for breach of contract and negligence. Specifically, the first cause of action for breach of contract and second cause of action for negligence are alleged on behalf of Plaintiff Cazares; the third cause of action for breach of contract and the fourth cause of action for negligence are alleged on behalf of Plaintiff Murdock. The pleading also mentions causes of action for unfair business practice, statutory violations, injunction, and unconscionable contract terms and breach of the covenant of good-faith and fair dealings. None of these causes of action, however, are separately articulated with supporting allegations.

The First Amended Complaint alleges that since about 2010, Plaintiffs contracted with Defendant to store their personal belongings and at all times have been current on their rent. (FAC, ¶10-11.) Defendant allegedly changed the terms of the contract by increasing the rent without providing 30 days notice. (FAC, ¶¶BC-1.) Defendant also illegally included an unconscionable term in violation of Civil Code section 1770, subdivision (a)(19). (Id. at Attachment to Cause_1, BC-2.) Defendant was also not registered as a business with the City of Glendale. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of overpayment of rent from March 1, 2022 to July 1, 2023. (Id. at Attachment to Cause_1, BC-2.) Defendant had a duty to be registered to do business in the City of Glendale per Ordinance Number 5.04.030. (FAC, ¶GN-1.) Defendant unlawfully collected rent because it did not have a right to raise rent on the storage units. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of rent charged illegally. (Ibid.)

The Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Demurrer, Ahdoot Decl., ¶3.) Plaintiffs dispute that the meet and confer declaration is adequate because defense counsel did not make a clear explanation of how each cause of action is defective, as required by the code provision. (Opp., Cazares Decl., ¶¶14-17.) In reply, Defendant does not offer any evidence to dispute Plaintiff Cazares’ account of the meet and confer effort. (Reply, p. 2:20-26.) However, the reply does point out that an inadequate meet and confer effort is not grounds to overrule the demurrer. (Citing Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).) Therefore, the Court will consider the merits of the Demurrer.

Defendant demurs to the Complaint for failure to allege sufficient facts. (Citing Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd. (e).) As noted above, only two causes of action are articulated in the First Amended Complaint. It is clear that the causes of action that are named but unsupported by any allegations—unfair business practice, statutory violations, injunction, and unconscionable contract terms and breach of the covenant of good-faith and fair dealings—fail to allege sufficient facts.

1st and 3rd Causes of Action for Breach of Contract

The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff.” (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.) Defendant demurs on the grounds that the Complaint does not sufficiently allege breach or causation of damages. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant breached the provision that it may adjust monthly rent after giving 30 days written notice by failing to give said notice. (FAC, Attachment to Cause_1, BC-2.) It is alleged that Defendant made a one-time increase in rent on Plaintiffs’ storage units in March 2022. (Id. at Attachment to Cause_1, BC-2 and BC-4.) The First Amended Complaint, therefore, does allege a one-time breach of the agreement in March 2022. Regarding the amount of damages sought, the First Amended Complaint does not support 16 months of increased rent given that after March 2022, Plaintiffs had notice of the increased rent. However, damages for the first month of increased rent for which no notice was provided, are alleged to have been caused by Defendant’s breach. This breach and resulting damage supports the cause of action for breach of contract.

Regarding the other allegation of including an unconscionable term, it is not shown that this is a breach of the parties’ agreement even if it violated section 1770 of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Nor does Defendant’s alleged failure to register its business with the City of Glendale, even if a violation of the municipal code, appear to constitute a contractual breach. Plaintiffs’ opposition offers no authority on why violations of the law should be deemed contractual violations.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer to the first and third causes of action for breach of contract is overruled.

2nd and 4th Causes of Action for Negligence

“The elements of any negligence cause of action are duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages.” (Peredia v. HR Mobile Services, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.) Defendant demurs on the grounds that none of its alleged conduct amounts to breach of a duty of care owed to Plaintiff. As Defendant points out, any alleged breach of the City of Glendale Municipal Code by failure to register its business does not involve a duty owed to Plaintiffs, nor an injury that gives rise to standing by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs point to no language in Glendale Ordinance No. 5.04.030 that permits a private person to sue for failure to comply with its requirements.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the second and fourth causes of action are brought under Cal. Business & Professions Code section 17200 for unfair business practices. First, this is directly contradicted by the language of the First Amended Complaint, which refers to these causes of action as “negligence.” Second, the case on which Plaintiffs rely to support the claim under section 17200, De La Torre v. Cashcall, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 966, is not analogous to the facts of this case. In De La Torre, consumers brought a class action lawsuit under section 17200 for the defendant’s violation of section 22302 of the California Financing Law. (De La Torre v. Cashcall, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 966, 974.) Unlike in this case, the law allegedly violated by the defendant in De La Torre was directed to consumer loans, which the represented class members had entered into with Cashcall. (Ibid.) Here, there is no alleged connection between the requirements of Glendale Ordinance No. 5.04.030 and Plaintiffs. Nor have Plaintiffs shown what fact could be alleged to demonstrate such a connection. Instead, Plaintiffs make conclusory arguments regarding the numerous potential causes of action that they might allege against Defendant under the section 17200, including fraud, violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and elder abuse. (Opp., p. 9:19-22.)

Therefore, the demurrer to the second and fourth causes of action is sustained without leave to amend.

Reclassify Action to Small Claims Court

Finally, Defendant asks the Court to reclassify this action the Small Claims court in light of the minimal damages. The request is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, which allows a defendant to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to respond the initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).) If the motion is made after the time for the defendant to respond to the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the defendant shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).) In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262, the California Supreme Court held that a matter may be reclassified from unlimited to limited only if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff’s damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.)

With respect to a request to transfer the action from limited to small claims, Defendant cites no case law regarding the standard that be met. Nor is the Court aware of any case law that addresses a transfer under Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 to the Small Claims court. Accordingly, the Court declines to grant the request to reclassify the action.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.