Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV29189, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV29189 Hearing Date: February 8, 2024 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Demurrer to the Complaint
Moving Party: Defendant
Stepane Kasimian
Resp. Party: None
The Demurrer is SUSTAINED.
On November 30, 2023, Plaintiff Anahid Golnazarian filed
a Complaint against Defendant Stepane Kasimian on causes of action for breach
of contract. Plaintiff seeks
$5,000,000.00 in his complaint. (Although
a cause of action for common counts is also listed in the Complaint, no
allegations are made as to that cause of action.)
On January 16, 2024, Defendant filed Demurrer to the
Complaint.
No opposition or other response has been filed.
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
Defendant demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that it does not state
facts sufficient to allege a cause of action.
To state a cause of action for breach of
contract, a plaintiff must be able to establish “(1) the existence of the
contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s
breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (Oasis W. Realty,
LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)
If a breach of contract claim “is based on
alleged breach of a written contract, the terms must be set out verbatim in the
body of the complaint or a copy of the written agreement must be attached and
incorporated by reference.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999)
74 Cal.App.4th 299, 307.)
“In an action based on a written contract, a
plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise
language.” (Constr. Protection Servs., Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co.
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198–199.)
Here, Plaintiff has not alleged that
there is a contract between the Parties. Rather, Plaintiff simply alleges that he
was in a fender-bender with Defendant on May 11, 2023, and that there was a contract
between Defendant and the Department of Motor Vehicles. Although the complaint is difficult to
decipher, it appears that Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached “Section
7: Laws and Rules of the Road” of his
agreement with the DMV.
However, since there was no contract between the parties, Plaintiff
cannot sue Defendant for Breach of Contract.
The Court will hear from Plaintiff at
the hearing as to whether he believes that the complaint can be amended.
III.
Conclusion
The Demurrer is SUSTAINED.