Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV16073, Date: 2024-10-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV16073    Hearing Date: October 7, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 7, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Sang Jun Jin

Responding Party: Plaintiff Kellee Murayama

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE 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 June 27, 2024, Plaintiff Kellee Murayama sued Defendants Yoong Young Lee, Eugene Lee and Sang Jun Jin, asserting causes of action for (1) negligence; and (2) breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff, the owner of a condominium unit in a building managed by Defendants, alleges Defendants improperly allowed another unit’s occupant to hoard dead and live cats, causing Plaintiff’s tenant to move out of the building.

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 Sang Jun Jin demurs to the complaint on the ground that Defendant does not owe Plaintiff a duty of care or a fiduciary duty. Defendant asserts that he, as a property manager acting on behalf of the Homeowner’s Association, owes a duty to the Homeowner’s Association, but not to Plaintiff as an individual member of the association. In support, Defendant cites the federal case Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. Eon Corporation (S.D.N.Y.1975) 401 F.Supp. 729, 736–737, stating “[A]n officer or director will not be liable for torts in which he does not personally participate, of which he has no knowledge, or to which he has not consented.... While the corporation itself may be liable for such acts, the individual officer or director will be immune unless he authorizes, directs, or in some meaningful sense actively participates in the wrongful conduct.”

Plaintiff alleges Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to uphold the HOA CC&Rs and to maintain the habitability of the units. This is sufficient to allege the existence of a duty. Plaintiff alleges Defendant was notified of the conditions of the neighboring unit and failed to remedy the conditions. This is sufficient to allege that Defendant, as an individual, breached that duty. While the Association also may have a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, Defendant has not shown that he individually has no duty.

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.