Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV19934, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19934    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 25, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Second Amended Cross-Complaint

Moving Party:  Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Khaled J. Al-Sabah

Responding Party:  Cross-Complainant/Defendant Michael Edward Bass

T/R:    CROSS-DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

            CROSS-DEFENDANT TO NOTICE. 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

            BACKGROUND

            On July 15, 2020, Plaintiff Khaled J. Al-Sabah filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Michael Edward Bass, Ronald Richards, and Usman Shaikh, asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, theft, money had and received, conversion, and accounting. Al-Sabah alleges that Bass was to be Al-Sabah’s “representative” in the United States. Al-Sabah alleges he wired Bass $2.5 million to hire attorney Defendant Shaikh to represent Al-Sabah in an unrelated embezzlement lawsuit. Al-Sabah alleges that Bass kept $2 million of his money.

            On November 18, 2020, Bass filed a cross-complaint against Al-Sabah, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) UCL violations; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) money had and received; (6) open book account; and (7) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After two demurrers, Bass filed the operative second amended cross-complaint asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) UCL Violations; (5) civil conspiracy; (6) tortious interference; (7) conversion; (8) unjust enrichment; and (9) open book account.

Bass alleges Al-Sabah engaged Bass as his “representative” in the United States for $5 million. Bass also alleges that he was “induced” to “forgo legal claims” worth $10 million against third-party Victor Noval. Bass alleges Al-Sabah has failed to pay him $5 million.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

Al-Sabah demurs to the second cross-complaint[1] on the grounds that it fails to state sufficient facts. The Court agrees. Bass alleges that Al-Sabah engaged Bass to recover funds from Victor Noval that Al-Sabah had invested in a multi-million-dollar property called “The Vineyard” or “The Mountain” in exchange for $5 million. Bass alleges he had unique knowledge of the transactions involving the property. From there, the second amended complaint descends into a maze of confusing, lurid allegations, including embezzlement, money laundering, and that Noval induced Al-Sabah’s investment in exchange for “sex with young people.” The allegations do not, however, adequately state breach of any written, oral, or implied contract, any specific facts showing fraud, or the elements of the other causes of action alleged.  

Bass has been afforded multiple attempts to state a claim in the cross-complaint. Bass does not show that further amendment can cure the deficiencies. The demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.