Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 24STLC00967, Date: 2024-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STLC00967    Hearing Date: May 23, 2024    Dept: 26

Siam v. Lee, et al.

DEMURRER

(CCP §§ 430.31, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Mike Lee’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. DEFENDANT MIKE LEE IS TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Jospeh Siam dba The Chequered Flag (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendant Mike Lee (“Defendant”) on February 8, 2024. Defendant filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint on April 30, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Demurrer, Hochhausler Decl., ¶2.) Defendant demurs to each cause of action for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Citing Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of contract; and (2) work, labor, services and materials rendered, based on the following facts. The parties agreed that Plaintiff would perform maintenance and repair services on Defendant’s “MGB” as requested by Defendant, including locating, securing and providing parts that were needed. (Compl., ¶BC-1.) Defendant promised to pay $19,175.00 for the “work, labor, services, and materials rendered” at Defendant’s request. (Id. at ¶CC-1.) Defendant breached the agreement by failing and refusing to pay the amount due for the maintenance and repair. (Id. at ¶BC-2.) As a result, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $11,175.00. (Id. at ¶¶BC-4, CC-2.)

Defendant demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that it does not allege Plaintiff provided Defendant with a written estimated price for labor and parts necessary and authorization prior to performing the work, as required by Business & Professions Code section 9884.9, subdivision (a). The statute applies to automotive repair and specifically provides: “The automotive repair dealer shall give to the customer a written estimated price for labor and parts necessary for a specific job, except as provided in subdivision (e). No work shall be done and no charges shall accrue before authorization to proceed is obtained from the customer.” (Bus. & Profs. Code, § 9884.9, subd. (a).)

The Complaint, however, does not allege that the nature of the work performed was automotive repair. It simply alleges “maintenance and repair services on Defendant’s MGB” without explaining the acronym “MGB.” The Demurrer, therefore, relies on facts outside the four corners of the Complaint, or on matters that have not been judicially noticed by the Court. As this is the only basis for the Demurrer, it is overruled.

Conclusion

Defendant Mike Lee’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. DEFENDANT MIKE LEE IS TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Court clerk to give notice.