Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV47089, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47089    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 4, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Charles O. Agege dba Law Offices of Charles O. Agege, joined by Defendant Setareh Kavosi

Responding Party: Plaintiff MSN Forensic Solution Experts LLC

T/R:    DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

            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 December 27, 2021, Plaintiff MSN Forensic Solution Experts LLC sued Defendants Charles O. Agege dba Law Offices of Charles O. Agege and Setareh Kavosi, asserting causes of action for breach of contract and common counts. Plaintiff alleges Agege hired Plaintiff on behalf of his client, Kavosi, to perform forensic accounting services in Kavosi’s family law case. Plaintiff alleges Defendants have an outstanding bill of $83,150.00.

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.)

            Defendant demurs to the second through fourth causes of action for common counts. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff cannot maintain causes of action for breach of contract and common counts simultaneously because common count claims exist in the absence of a contract.

The Court declines to sustain the demurrer on this basis. “When a pleader is in doubt about what actually occurred or what can be established by the evidence, the modern practice allows that party to plead in the alternative and make inconsistent allegations.” (Mendoza v. Continental Sales Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1402.) Plaintiff may plead alternative theories of liability.

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.