Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV05239, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV05239    Hearing Date: April 14, 2025    Dept: I

This is a demurrer.  The demurrer is OVERRULED and the motion to strike is DENIED.

Plaintiff sues defendant for breach of contract.  Plaintiff contends that plaintiff entered into a design contract with defendants to convert a home on Anchor Avenue into a larger home.  The agreement required defendant to pay $550,000 for plaintiff’s work and also provided that either side could terminate on 14 days notice, but that upon termination, defendant had to pay plaintiff for whatever work had been done.  Plaintiff alleges that it did work on the project, but on May 27, 2023, defendant stated that the property was going to be sold.  Plaintiff still worked on the project, allegedly with defendant’s agreement.  Plaintiff claims it continued to provide services through August 2024.  There was an invoice for $77,000, which plaintiff states remains unpaid.

There was a second contract: the Barbados project.  Plaintiff was to design layouts and select interior fixtures and finishes for a non-refundable fee of $13,000 and $200/hour after that.  The agreement included video and photography access within 2 to 6 weeks after completion so plaintiff could promote the business.  The complaint alleges that plaintiff did not get the access, and that defendant was required to pay plaintiff $10,000 for that.  Plaintiff claims to have provided services in excess of $50,000, but defendants allegedly ran into problems with the builder.  Plaintiff claims to have helped on that, but claims defendants failed to pay.  Plaintiff asserts that after the project was completed, plaintiff was denied photo access but not paid the $10,000 fee.  Defendants demur and move to strike.

Amazingly, both sides have asked for sanctions.  It is not proper to do that, and there is no basis for it here.  The parties need to stop that.  Chest pounding is unhelpful.

The demurrers are OVERRULED.  The moving papers rely on facts outside the pleadings, and defendants ought to know better.  On reply, defendants attempt to say that the facts are all in the complaint or the attachments, but they are not.  For example, defendants state that they fully compensated plaintiff under the contract by paying $276,000 including the termination fee.  That is not in the complaint.

Defendants also argue that not enough detail is alleged.  But there is no heightened pleading standard for these causes of action. 

As for the common counts, they are closer calls.  The court believes there is enough here for an open book.  The account stated is right on the line, but it is better tested on summary judgment.

The motion to strike is DENIED.  Whether the defendants already paid for services rendered is outside the pleadings.  The request for to strike attorneys’ fees is closer.  But defendants should rest assured that no fees will be awarded absent a legal basis to do so.  For now, it does no mischief.  It will, however, be stricken if there is no basis for it as the evidence comes in.