Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV22924, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22924    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 25, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Cross-Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Sherman Oaks First Plaza, LLC

Responding Party: Defendants Lorena Sanchez and Lorena B. Sanchez dba Honor Yoga

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITH 30 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED AS MOOT.

            PLAINTIFF 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 September 21, 2023, Plaintiff Sherman Oaks First Plaza, LLC sued Defendants Lorena Sanchez and Lorena B. Sanchez dba Honor Yoga, asserting a single cause of action for breach of contract. This action arises out of a lease agreement and guaranty entered into by the parties on October 15, 2019. (Compl., ¶¶ 9-13.) Plaintiff alleges that Honor Yoga defaulted on its rental obligations beginning in June 2020 (Compl., ¶ 14) and vacated the premises in October 2022 without paying the balance owed. (Compl., ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants owe Plaintiff $496,762.80. (Compl., ¶ 19.)

            On December 12, 2023, Defendants filed a cross-complaint (“XC”) against Plaintiff, alleging that Defendants were unable to take possession of the leased premises because the premises were in “a deplorable state of disrepair” and the City of Los Angeles Building Department (the “City”) refused to approve construction of a yoga studio, despite Defendants’ efforts to find a compromise. (XC, ¶ 5(A)-(G).) Honor Yoga eventually cancelled its franchise agreement with Sanchez. (XC, ¶ 5(I).) Defendants allege that Plaintiff knew or should have known about the poor condition of the interior of the promises and the City’s use and occupancy restrictions but failed to disclose them. (XC, ¶ 6.) Defendants allege that Plaintiff violated some Lease provisions. (XC, ¶ 7.)

On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant demurrer to and motion to strike the XC.

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.)

            Plaintiff demurs to the cross-complaint on the ground that it fails to specifically state the cause or causes of action alleged, rendering the cross-complaint uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible under CCP § 430.10(f) and subject to a motion to strike, in its entirety, pursuant to CCP § 436(b).

Under CCP § 428.10, “a party against whom a cause of action has been asserted . . . may file a cross-complaint setting forth either or both of the following: (a) any cause of action he has against any of the parties who filed the complaint . . . against him . . . (b) any cause of action he has against a [non-party]. . . .” (CCP § 428.10 [emphasis added].) California Rules of Court Rule 2.112 provides that each cause of action must be specifically enumerated and state its nature (e.g., “for breach of contract”). (CRC 2.112.)

Defendants’ cross-complaint contains factual allegations but does not state any cause of action. Defendants contend in opposition that “[i]t is clear from the cross-complaint that it is a cross-complaint and that it is a cross-complaint back against the original plaintiff;” that “there is but one cause of action, based on the grounds contained in the cross-complaint, and that it is a cross-complaint back against the original plaintiff.” (Opp’n, 2:3-8.) Even in opposition, Defendants failed to identify their cause of action. It is possible that Defendants seek to mirror the complaint and raise one cause of action for breach of contract against Plaintiff, but this is not clear.

            Plaintiff’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. The Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot, given the sustaining of the demurrer.