Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV18535, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV18535    Hearing Date: November 21, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: November 21, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Jackie Rose Kruger and The Law Offices of Jackie Rose Kruger, P.C.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Justin Yovino, Sarah Yovino and Justin Yovino, MD PA dba Ideal Face and Body

T/R:      DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE ANSWERS TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

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, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On July 25, 2024, Plaintiffs Justin Yovino, Sarah Yovino and Justin Yovino, MD PA dba Ideal Face and Body filed a complaint against Defendants Jackie Rose Kruger and The Law Offices of Jackie Rose Kruger, P.C., asserting one cause of action for professional negligence. Plaintiffs allege Defendants negligently represented them in an employment lawsuit brought by a former employee.

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 complaint on the ground that it fails to state sufficient facts. For a legal malpractice cause of action, the plaintiff must plead: (1) the duty of the attorney to use such skill, prudence and diligence as members of his or her profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the attorney’s negligence. (Jocer Enterprises, Inc. v. Price (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 559, 572.) Here, Plaintiffs allege,

Plaintiffs retained defendants to represent plaintiffs initially in addressing an employee’s termination and subsequently in defending plaintiffs in the employment matter filed by the employee.

Defendants’ representation of plaintiffs fell below the applicable standard of care. Among other things, defendants failed to properly counsel plaintiffs in the proper way to address the employee’s termination and/or other issues relating to federal and state laws. As such, rather than a simple resolution of the matter prelitigation, defendants’ negligent advice and actions led to the employee’s filing a complaint against plaintiffs, resulting in extensive legal fees, costs and a settlement of the employee’s claims.

As a result of defendants’ actions, plaintiffs sustained damages which include, but are not limited to, attorneys fees and costs, as well as a settlement of the employee’s claims. The amount over and above the limited fees that should have been incurred had defendants not been negligent is a total of $350,000 or according to proof at the time of trial.

(Compl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 6.)

These allegations are sufficient to allege a claim for professional negligence. Defendants are apprised of the facts alleged against them and this cause of action does not have a heightened pleading standard. The demurrer is OVERRULED.