Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV10347, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV10347 Hearing Date: April 4, 2024 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Demurrer to
Fourth Amended Cross-Complaint
Moving Party: Rudy
Malka
Resp. Party: Gloria Shulman Hughes and John E. Hughes, Jr.
The Demurrer to the Fourth Amended Cross-Complaint is
OVERRULED.
BACKGROUND:
On March 24, 2022, Living The Dream filed its Complaint against Gloria
Shulman Hughes and John E. Hughes, Jr. on causes of action of declaratory
relief and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
On June 13, 2022, Living The Dream filed its First Amended Complaint,
which added allegations and causes of action.
On September 21, 2022, Gloria Shulman Hughes and John E. Hughes, Jr.
filed: (1) Answer to the First Amended Complaint; and (2) Cross-Complaint
against Living The Dream and California Numbered Company 4009746.
On October 10, 2022, Gloria Shulman Hughes and John E. Hughes, Jr.
filed their First Amended Cross-Complaint.
On March 16, 2023, Gloria Shulman Hughes and John E. Hughes, Jr. filed
their Second Amended Cross-Complaint.
On December 8, 2023, Gloria Shulman Hughes and John E. Hughes, Jr.
filed their Third Amended Cross-Complaint.
On December 14, 2023, Gloria Shulman Hughes and John E. Hughes, Jr.
filed their Corrected Third Amended Cross-Complaint (“Fourth Amended
Cross-Complaint”).
On February 26, 2024, the Court struck paragraph 168 and prayer 4 of
the tenth cause of action for unfair business practices from the Fourth Amended
Cross-Complaint.
On March 7, 2024, Living The Dream and Shalom Shay Gozlan filed their
Answer to the Fourth Amended Cross-Complaint.
On March 7, 2024, Rudy Malka filed his Demurrer to the Fourth Amended
Cross-Complaint (“Demurrer”). In support of his Demurrer, Rudy Malka
concurrently filed: (1) Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“Memorandum”); (2)
Declaration of Adam J. Yarbrough; and (3) Proof of Service.
On March 13, 2024, Gloria Shulman Hughes and John E. Hughes, Jr. filed
their Opposition to the Demurrer.
On March 27, 2024, Rudy Malka filed his Reply in support of his
Demurrer.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Legal Standard
“The party
against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by
demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or
more of” various grounds listed in statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)
“When any ground
for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face
thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take
judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the
pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).)
“A demurrer to a
complaint or cross-complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or
cross-complaint or to any of the causes of action stated therein.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 430.50, subd. (a).)
“In reviewing the sufficiency
of a complaint against a general demurrer, we are guided by long-settled rules.
We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not
contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We also consider matters which may be judicially
noticed. Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation,
reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985)
39 Cal.3d 311, 318, citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)
II.
Discussion
Rudy Malka demurs to the entire Fourth
Amended Cross-Complaint, arguing that there has not been a sufficient pleading
of alter ego liability. (Demurrer, pp. 4:2, 6:1–2.)
The Court disagrees with this argument.
Among other things, Gloria Shulman Hughes and John E. Hughes, Jr.
allege that Rudy Malka is an alter ego of Living The Dream, LTD RE, and New
Horizon. (Fourth Amended Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 11–13.)
These allegations sufficiently and certainly plead the alter ego theory
as it regards Rudy Malka. The moving party can obtain further details on the
alter ego allegations through discovery.
III.
Conclusion
The Demurrer to the Fourth Amended Cross-Complaint is
OVERRULED.