Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV19315, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19315    Hearing Date: April 29, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Demurrer to Cross-Complaint

Moving Party: George Santopietro

Resp. Party:    Lia Vasdekis

The Demurrer to the Vasdekis Cross-Complaint is OVERRULED.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

        First, on February 28, 2024, George Santopietro filed his “Amended” First Amended Complaint. This document was not signed by Santopietro’s Counsel; this document cannot be accepted by the Court as a pleading. Moreover, even if the document had been signed, Santopietro did not request leave to file a second amended pleading, and the Court did not grant such leave. Thus, this document is a nullity.

        Second, Cross-Complainant’s Counsel’s Opposition was difficult to follow. For instance, Counsel states:

“B. The essence of the Complaint by Vasdekis against Santopietro is (for the purpose of opposing these Demurrers, this section is showing disputed facts and undisputed facts that establish her cross complaint to be sufficient). All quotes in this section are taken from the Cross Complaint by Vasdekis (herein her cross complaint is also referred to from time to time as “VCC”)”  (Opposition, p. 3:3-7 [bolding and typos in original].)

It is not clear to the Court what this paragraph intends to convey. Similarly, the opposition has numerous paragraphs that contain sentence fragments.  For instance:

“A contract was entered into. Shown in her pleadings, i.e Vasdekis was hired by Santopietro to deliver the Property for $60,000 for the 7-nights.”  (Opposition, p. 5:6-7.)

        Lastly, the opposition is apparently filed on behalf of Cross-Complainant Lia Vasdekis. (See Opposition, p. 1:25.) However, the signature line underneath counsel’s signature states that counsel is “Attorney for James Vasdekis.”  (Opposition, p. 7:26.)  As far as the Court is aware, there is no party to this case named James Vasdekis.

The Court encourages Defense Counsel to consider using additional headings and sub-headings and to actually proof-read future pleadings before filing them with the Court. 

BACKGROUND:

On August 14, 2023, George Santopietro filed his Complaint against James Harden and Lia Vasdekis on various causes of action arising from a contract and alleged use of real property.

On January 2, 2024, by request of George Santopietro, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice James Harden from the Complaint.

On February 8, 2024, George Santopietro filed his First Amended Complaint (FAC).

On February 20, 2024, the Court found related cases 19STCV32597 and 23STCV19315, and designated 19STCV32597 as the lead case.

On March 1, 2024, Lia Vasdekis filed her Cross-Complaint (“Vasdekis Cross-Complaint”) against George Santopietro, North Beverly Park Homeowners Association, Inc., and V.M. Rosich.

On March 1, 2024, Lia Vasdekis filed her Answer to the FAC.

On March 11, 2024, George Santopietro filed his Demurrer to Cross-Complaint of Lia Vasdekis (“Demurrer”). In support of his Demurrer, George Santopietro concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Robert H. Bisno; and (2) Proposed Order.

On March 18, 2024, Lia Vasdekis filed her Opposition to the Demurrer (“Opposition”).

On March 29, 2024, George Santopietro filed his Reply in support of the Demurrer (“Reply”).

On April 17, 2024, by request of Lia Vasdekis, the Clerk’s Office dismissed with prejudice V.M. Rosich from the Vasdekis Cross-Complaint.

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

A.      The Parties’ Arguments

George Santopietro demurs to the first cause of action (breach of contract and aiding and abetting breach of contract), second cause of action (fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud), and third cause of action (unfair business practices) in the Vasdekis Cross-Complaint.

George Santopietro argues: (1) that the Vasdekis Cross-Complaint is conclusionary; (2) that Lia Vasdekis’s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation; (3) that Lia Vasdekis lacks standing to brings these claims; and (4) that there are other defects with Lia Vasdekis’s claims, such as with failure to meet with heightened pleading requirement for fraud. (Demurrer, pp. 2:11–13, 5:6–7, 5:21–22, 6:12–15, 7:1–2, 7:22–23.)

Lia Vasdekis disagrees, arguing that the allegations are sufficient. (Opposition, pp. 5:1–2, 5:22, 7:5.)

        George Santopietro reiterates his arguments in his Reply.

B.      Discussion

1.      Standing

George Santopietro gave Lia Vasdekis standing to sue him by first suing her. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10.)

2.      The Pleadings

The Vasdekis Cross-Complaint is not conclusionary. Rather, she pleads various causes of actions, three of which are against George Santopietro. These causes of action are specific, certain, list all of the elements necessary for these causes of action, and, where necessary, meet the heightened pleading requirements. (Vasdekis Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 13–21, 25–27, 30–31, 33–34, 37.)

3.      The Statutes of Limitations

“Civil actions, without exception, can only be commenced within the periods prescribed in this title, after the cause of action shall have accrued, unless where, in special cases, a different limitation is prescribed by statute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 312.)

        However, the Vasdekis Cross-Complaint is in a special category.

“Although ordinarily the statute of limitations will bar a cross-complaint in the same fashion as if the defendant had brought an independent action, the rule is different when the original complaint was filed before the statute of limitations on the cross-complaint had elapsed. Such a cross-complaint need only be subject-matter related to the plaintiff's complaint – i.e., arise out of the same occurrence (see §§ 426.10, 428.10) – to relate back to the date of filing the complaint for statute of limitation purposes.” (Sidney v. Super. Ct. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 710, 714, cleaned up.)

Here, the Vasdekis Cross-Complaint is subject-matter related to the occurrence in George Santopietro’s Complaint and his FAC — i.e., the events that allegedly occurred in August 2019 on George Santopietro’s real property. (Complaint, ¶ 8; FAC, ¶ 7.)

Thus, to the extent that the FAC is safe from the applicable statutes of limitations, the Vasdekis Cross-Complaint is safe from the applicable statutes of limitations.

But the reverse is also true — if the Complaint and FAC were filed after the applicable statutes of limitations, then the Vasdekis Cross-Complaint was almost certainly also filed after the applicable statutes of limitations.

The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) fraud; (4) fraud in the inducement; (5) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (6) breach of fiduciary duty; (7) aiding and abetting; and (8) violation of Penal Code section 496.

The FAC alleges the following causes of action: (1) aiding and abetting breach of contract; (2) aiding and abetting fraud; (3) aiding and abetting fraud in the inducement; (4) violation of Business of Professions Code section 17200; and (5) violation of Penal Code section 496.

George Santopietro demurs to the following causes of action in the Vasdekis Cross-Complaint: (1) breach of contract and aiding and abetting breach of contract; (2) fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud; and (3) unfair business practices.

According to various pleadings, all of this conduct happened in August 2019. However, the Court is unable to pinpoint based on the pleadings exactly when each part of the conduct occurred.

Notably, the Complaint in this matter was filed on August 14, 2023 — meaning that some conduct that occurred before August 14, 2020 and other conduct that occurred before August 14, 2019 would presumably be barred by the statute of limitations, unless some exception applied.

This is because:

(1)       the statute of limitations for breach of contract is four years (Code Civ. Proc., § 337, subd. (a));

(2)       the statute of limitations for aiding and abetting a tort is the same as the underlying tort (Am. Master Lease LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1451, 1478–1479, citations omitted);

(3)       the statute of limitations for fraud is three years (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d));

(4)       the statute of limitations for civil conspiracy is based on the nature of the conspiracy alleged (Kenworthy v. Brown (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 298, 301, citation and italics omitted);

(5)       the statute of limitations for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 is four years (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17208); and

(6)       the statute of limitations for a violation of Penal Code section 496 is three years (Pen. Code § 801; see also People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 846, 861, fn. 14).

At this time, George Santopietro has not met his burden to show that the Vasdekis Cross-Complaint is time-barred.

III.     Conclusion

The Demurrer to the Vasdekis Cross-Complaint is OVERRULED.