Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV30438, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30438    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 23, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants SCG Bahay Apartments, LLC and SRG Residential

Responding Party: Plaintiff Pampanga Master Grill, Inc.

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION IS SUSTAINED. THE DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION IS OVERRULED.

PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN

30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS THEREAFTER.

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 13, 2023, Plaintiff sued Defendants, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) negligence. Plaintiff, a commercial tenant of a unit owned and managed by Defendants, alleges another tenant improperly installed duct work; Defendants failed to remove or remedy the improper duct work, preventing Plaintiff from completing construction in Plaintiff’s unit.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence of the documents, but not as to the truth of the matters asserted therein.

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.)

A. Breach of Contract

“The standard elements of a claim for breach of contract are: ‘(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom.’” (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)

Defendants demur to the first cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiffs fail to allege specific facts showing Defendants breached the agreement.

Plaintiffs allege Defendants “agreed that they would provide Unit #200 an exhaust shaft for the installation of its ducting system measuring at least 30" x 30" (6.25 square feet) to the roof with cleanouts and access to the exhaust shaft to be accessible to at every floor of the building per code. Defendants further agreed that they would ensure that the exhaust shafts of the other tenants in the Property, which included Nashville's Unit #100 do not prevent or occupy each tenant's, including PMG's Unit #200, being able to legally and possibly install their own ducting system for its own intended use and benefit. Defendants further agreed to ensure that each tenant of the Property, including Unit #100, obtains the necessary permit for their intended construction work to be performed in their leased unit and comply with the established laws and regulations.” (Compl. 21.) Plaintiff alleges it performed under the lease and Defendants breached the lease by failing to remedy the neighboring unit’s duct work and failing to provide Plaintiff with the exhaust shaft required by the lease. This is sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of contract.

The demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED.

B. Second Cause of Action for Bad Faith

Defendants demur to the second cause of action on the ground that it is duplicative of the first. The Court declines to sustain the demurrer on this basis. Plaintiff may allege alternative theories of liability.

The demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED.

C. Third Cause of Action for Negligence

Defendants demur to the third cause of action for negligence on the ground that it is barred by the economic loss rule. (See Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 905, 922.) In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the allegations fall under the fraud exception to the economic loss rule. But Plaintiff does not allege fraud; Plaintiff alleges only negligence.

The demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED.