Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV12097, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12097    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 2, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Erin Barry, Kohr Group Realty, Inc. and Julio Ayora

Responding Party: None

T/R:    DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

DEFENDANTS 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. No opposition has been received.

BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2022, Plaintiff Saul Larner filed a complaint against Defendants Erin Barry, Kohr Group Realty, Inc., Julio Ayora, Naomi Kalkanoff, and SFRE Beverly Hills, Inc., asserting eleven causes of action for defamation, negligence, tortious interference, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and UCL violations. Plaintiff alleges Defendants defamed him by making an ethics complaint against him to the Department of Real Estate and the Greater Los Angeles Realtors organization.

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.)

Defendants demur to the second amended complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to state causes of action against Defendants. The Court agrees. The allegations against Defendants are confusing. It is unclear what statements were allegedly made by Defendants and what statements form the basis of Plaintiff’s causes of action.

For example, Plaintiff alleges “Barry called the seller’s agent who originally sold the property to condo seller when he purchased it and left a voice mail message with the subject matter that maliciously led to Plaintiff being terminated. Larner had been told by Stager that he had a letter of complaint which was a lawyer letter, and it became obvious that no such letter existed. Stager was trying to maintain the confidentiality of the phone call from Barry stating untrue remarks against Larner in an effort to get him terminated.” (SAC ¶ 30.) The SAC is composed of equally confusing allegations.

Plaintiff’s allegations do not state causes of action against Defendants.  Plaintiff does not oppose this motion to clarify the allegations or provide reason why leave to amend should be granted.

            Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Hearing Date: May 2, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendant Michele A. Dobson

Responding Party: None

T/R:    DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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. No opposition has been received.

            Attorney/Defendant Michele A. Dobson moves for sanctions against Plaintiff for filing the malicious prosecution action in related case no. 22STCV36561. Dobson, however, has filed this motion in case no. 22STCV12097. These actions have not been consolidated. This motion must be filed under the case number of the action in which Dobson seeks relief.

            Defendant’s motion for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.