Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV05502, Date: 2025-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05502    Hearing Date: April 8, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 8, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Farhad Yaghoubi

Responding Party: None

T/R:      DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS MOOT.

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 March 8, 2024, Plaintiffs William Marshall and Clarence Tate filed the operative second amended complaint against Defendant Farhad Yaghoubi, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, negligence, civil battery, IIED, and premises liability.

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 entire complaint on the grounds that it is uncertain and fails to state sufficient facts. The Court agrees. Plaintiffs’ complaint contains vague and confusing allegations of a property transfer from Defendant to Plaintiffs. It is unclear from the SAC whether the transfer was a sale or lease and Plaintiffs do not provide a copy of the lease and/or sales agreement.

The allegations of misrepresentation, negligence, and battery are similarly confusing and the same as those in previous iterations of the complaint. For example, Plaintiffs allege, “Defendant made representations to Plaintiffs about subject property described in this complaint that were wholly false. Defendant conveyed property that had been closed due to a raid conducted by LAPD. conceal that roof needed to be replaced; that mold had the high vo tage [sic] wire removed because it was an illegal grow site. Defendant conveyed the building to the former tenants knowing that the building would be used for an illegal purpose.” This is insufficient to state a claim for fraud or negligence. Plaintiffs do not oppose the demurrer to clarify the allegations.

Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The motion to strike is MOOT.