Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV21445, Date: 2025-04-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV21445 Hearing Date: April 4, 2025 Dept: 54
|
Superior Court
of California County of Los
Angeles |
|||
|
Pub Construction, Inc., |
Plaintiff, |
Case No.: |
24STCV21445 |
|
vs. |
|
Tentative Ruling |
|
|
Redhawk Management Inc., et al., |
Defendants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing Date: April 4, 2025
Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter
Demurrer to First Amended Complaint
Moving Party: Defendants Cardinal Investments, LLC
and 4189 S. Normandie Street Partners, LLC
Responding Party: Plaintiff Pub Construction, Inc.
T/R: DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.
DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE ANSWERS TO
THE FIRST AMENDED 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 January 29, 2025, Plaintiff Pub
Construction, Inc. filed a the operative first amended complaint against
Defendants, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, common counts,
and foreclosure on mechanic's lien. Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
for construction work on properties owned by Defendants.
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 first cause of action
for breach of written settlement agreement on the ground that they did not sign
the agreement; only Defendant Redhawk signed the agreement. The agreement, attached as exhibit 1 to the FAC, does not contain
a signature block for moving Defendants, and does not recite that Redhawk was
authorized to sign for the moving Defendants. But the agreement states that it is a global settlement among
"Redhawk Management / Cardinal Investments / 4189 S Normandie St.
Partners, LLC. (hereinafter referred to as "Redhawk") and PUB
Construction Inc." Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants breached the
agreement. This is sufficient to allege a claim for breach of contract against
moving Defendants. The Court cannot find on demurrer that moving Defendants are
not bound by this agreement.
Defendants'
demurrer is OVERRULED.