Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV24393, Date: 2025-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV24393    Hearing Date: February 28, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 28, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant California Automobile Insurance Company

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Janice Baran and Daniel Rosenblatt

T/R:      DEFENDANT’S 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 September 19, 2024, Plaintiffs Janice Baran and Daniel Rosenblatt filed a complaint against Defendant California Automobile Insurance Company, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) UCL violations. Plaintiffs allege Defendant wrongfully denied a claim for property damage from a water intrusion.

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 demurs to the third cause of action for UCL violations. California Business and Professions Code section 17200 prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; see Clark v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 605, 610.)  The remedies for UCL claims brought by private individuals are limited to injunctive relief and restitution. (See, e.g., Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1133.)

Defendant asserts that the claim for UCL violations fails because Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law under the causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith and cannot also seek equitable relief under the UCL. Plaintiffs may allege alternative theories of liability and alternative remedies.

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.