Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV09402, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV09402 Hearing Date: August 30, 2022 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Defendant’s Demurrer to
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
Moving Party: Defendant
Guadalupe Guzman
Resp. Party: None
Defendant Guadalupe Guzman’s
demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment in Plaintiff
Francisco Flores' First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.
I.
PRELIMINARLY
COMMENT
The Court does not understand why
defense counsel choose to waste its client’s money – and this Court’s time – on
this demurrer. Defendant is demurring to the fourth cause of action because it is
duplicative of the first cause of action.
So what? As our Legislature
declared over 150 years ago, “Superfluity does not vitiate.” (Civ.Code § 3537.) The Court sustaining a demurrer to a duplicative cause of action gains defendant nothing.
II.
BACKGROUND
On March 17, 2022, Plaintiff
Francisco Flores (“Flores”) filed a complaint against Defendant Guadalupe
Guzman (“Guzman”) alleging the following causes of action:
1.
Breach of
Contract;
2.
Breach of Covenant
of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
3.
Money Had and
Received;
4.
Quantum Meruit;
5.
Unjust Enrichment;
6.
Promissory
Estoppel;
7.
Defamation;
8.
Intentional
Misrepresentation;
9.
Unfair Business
Practices (Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.)
On May 27, 2022, Defendant
Guadalupe Guzman demurred to the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth,
and Ninth Causes of Action of Flores’ Complaint for failure to state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action under CCP § 430.10(e) and
uncertainty under CCP § 430.10(f). (Demurrer, p. 1:19—3:17.)
On June 27, 2022, the Court
sustained with leave to amend Guzman’s demurrer to the Third and Fifth Causes
of Action of Flores’ Complaint. The Court sustained without leave to amend
Guzman’s demurrer to the Sixth and Ninth Causes of Action of Flores’ Complaint.
On July 7, 2022, Plaintiff
Francisco Flores filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant
Guadalupe Guzman alleging the following causes of action:
1.
Breach of Contract
2.
Breach of Covenant
of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
3.
Quantum Meruit
4.
Unjust Enrichment
5.
Defamation
6.
Intentional
Misrepresentation
On August 4, 2022, Guzman demurred
to the Fourth Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment of Flores’ FAC. No
opposition has been filed with the Court.
III. ANALYSIS
A.
Legal Standard
A demurrer is a pleading used to test the
legal sufficiency of other pleadings. (Cty. of Fresno v. Shelton (1998)
66 Cal.App.4th 996, 1008–09; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)
It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the
opposing party’s pleading. It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge
the truthfulness of the complaint. (Unruh-Haxton v. Regents of Univ. of
California (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 343, 365, as modified (May 15, 2008).)
For purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint
are assumed to be true, however improbable they may be. (CCP §§ 422.10, 589.)
A demurrer can be used only to challenge
defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters
outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985)
39 Cal.3d 311.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no
“speaking demurrers”). A demurrer is brought under Code of Civil Procedure §
430.10 (grounds), § 430.30 (as to any matter on its face or from which judicial
notice may be taken), and § 430.50(a) (can be taken to the entire complaint or
any cause of action within).
A demurrer may be brought under Code of Civil
Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts are stated to
support the cause of action asserted. A demurrer for uncertainty may be brought
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f). “A
demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in
some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery
procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th
612, 616.) “In general, ‘demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are
granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot
reasonably respond.’” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)
B.
Discussion
The elements for a claim of unjust
enrichment are receipt of a benefit and unjust retention of the benefit at the
expense of another. The theory of unjust enrichment requires one who acquires a
benefit which may not justly be retained, to return either the thing or its
equivalent to the aggrieved party so as not to be unjustly enriched. (Lyles
v. Sangadeo-Patel (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 759, 769; see also Prakashpalan
v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1132.)
The Court notes that Flores pleads
both Guzman’s receipt of a benefit (FAC, ¶¶ 51-54) and unjust retention of the
benefit at Flores’ expense (FAC, ¶¶ 54-57). Thus, Flores adequately pleads all
elements of unjust enrichment in the Fourth Cause of Action.
It is true, as Guzman points out, that Flores’ unjust
enrichment claim duplicates alleged facts from Flores’ breach of contract claim.
(Demurrer, MPA, p. 5:14-18; Minute Order, June 27, 2022, p. 8.) Nonetheless, “it is a waste of time and
judicial resources to entertain a motion challenging part of a pleading on the
sole ground of repetitiveness. (See Civ.Code, § 3537 [“Superfluity does not
vitiate”].) This is the sort of defect that, if it justifies any judicial
intervention at all, is ordinarily dealt with most economically at trial, or on
a dispositive motion such as summary judgment.”
(Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF
Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 890.)
IV. CONCLUSION
Defendant Guadalupe Guzman’s
demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment in Plaintiff
Francisco Flores' First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.