Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV19000, Date: 2025-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV19000    Hearing Date: February 3, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 3, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendants Yossi Samana and Imagine Builders, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Hermes Germi Pique Corchs and Ines Filgueira Chiossoni

T/R:      DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

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 30, 2024, Plaintiffs Hermes Germi Pique Corchs and Ines Filgueira Chiossoni, individually and as co-trustees of the The Pique and Filgueira Living Trust, sued Defendants Three Palms California, LLC, Yechiel Kiesler, Edna Kiesler, Yossi Samana and Imagine Builders, Inc., asserting causes of action for (1) violation of Civ. Code § 896 et seq.; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of express warranty; (4) intentional misrepresentation; (5) negligent misrepresentation; (6) fraudulent concealment; (7) professional negligence; and (8) strict liability. Plaintiffs seek redress for various construction defects in Plaintiffs’ residence caused by Defendants.

ANALYSIS

A. Demurrer to Complaint

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 Yossi Samana and Imagine Builders, Inc. demur to the first cause of action for violation of Civ. Code § 896 et seq. on the ground that it is uncertain. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have failed to allege a contract between Plaintiffs and moving Defendants, and that Defendant Samana is misjoined.

Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated the Building Codes by defectively building, renovating, or installing roofing, doors, stucco, and flooring in their home. Plaintiffs allege Defendant Samana is the general managing officer of Defendant Imagine, and that Samana does business as Imagine. Plaintiffs allege Defendants Imagine and Samana were the general contractor for work on the subject property. This is sufficient to allege a cause of action for violation of Civ. Code § 896 et seq.

Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.

B. Motion to Strike

“Any party, within the time allowed to response to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part" of that pleading. (CCP § 435(b)(1).) “The Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading; (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the Court." (CCP § 436.)

Defendant moves to strike the entire complaint on the same grounds as those listed in the demurrer. Defendant also seeks to strike the prayer for attorney’s fees and damages. As discussed, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged claims against Defendants. The Court will not strike Plaintiffs’ requests for attorney’s fees or damages at the pleading stage.

The motion to strike is DENIED.