Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV09614, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV09614    Hearing Date: March 6, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV09614 Michael A. Longmire v. Geico Insurance Corporate, et al.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

                                                                                              I.         BACKGROUND

      The first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleges for breach of contract and insurance bad faith arising from Defendant, Geico Insurance Corp.’s (“Geico”) failure to properly investigate Plaintiff’s insurance claim following a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff alleges Geico towed the vehicle to Autotech Collision (“Autotech”) center to perform a repair estimate although Plaintiff alleges that Autotech did not proper credentials to perform repair work on Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff sues Geico, Autotech, CK Collision, Inc. (“CKCI”) and Eddie Cho.

      Defendant CKC demurs to the FAC for failure to state a cause of action for breach of contract or insurance bad faith. The FAC is uncertain as to what claims are being asserted against CKCI. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

                                                                                       II.        LEGAL STANDARDS

      A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) In testing the complaint’s sufficiency, the court must assume the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations as well as facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded facts. The court may also consider matters properly subject to judicial notice. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

      The court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638.) Plaintiff is required to allege facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126.)

      Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case, alleged "with reasonable precision and with particularity that is sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.)  Whether the Plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant. (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.)

      A demurrer may also be sustained if a complaint is “uncertain”. Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual allegations are so confusing, they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2; Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(f).)

                                                                                                III.       DISCUSSION

      While the parties are ordinarily required by statute to meet and confer prior to the hearing on demurrer, the requirement does not apply in an action where counsel does not represent a party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41.) Plaintiff is self-represented.

      The FAC fails to state a cause of action against CKCI. While Plaintiff includes CKCI as a defendant in the caption of the pleading, Plaintiff does not allege any facts implicating CKCI. The FAC alleges that Plaintiff is suing Geico and Autotech only. (FAC, p. 4.).

      Plaintiff does not allege facts to support a cause of action for breach of contract against CKCI. To state a cause of action, the plaintiff must allege facts showing (1) the existence of the contract, (2) the plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant's breach, and (4) resulting damages to the plaintiff. (Maxwell v. Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97–98.) Plaintiff may also allege the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language by alleging the making and the substance of the relevant terms of the contract. (Perry v. Robertson (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 333, 341; Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 199.) Plaintiff may also attach a copy of the written contract to the complaint. (Id.)

      The FAC does not allege Plaintiff entered into a contract with CKCI, the terms of the contract, Plaintiff’s performance, or Defendant’s breach. Plaintiff does not allege the legal effect of any purported contract made with CDCI. Nor has Plaintiff attached a copy of the contract. The allegations do not assert whether the contract was oral or written.

      To allege a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff must allege facts to show the existence of a contractual relationship and that benefits due under the contract were withheld unreasonably and without proper cause. (Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1151.) The prerequisite for this cause of action is the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties, since the covenant is an implied term in the contract. (Smith v. City and County of San Francisco (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 38, 49.) Plaintiff did not allege a contractual relationship with CKCI or any facts that support the remaining elements of this claim.

                                                                                              IV.       CONCLUSION

      For these reasons, CKCI’S demurrer to the FAC is SUSTAINED. Leave to amend is ordinarily given if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured. (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Department of Industrial Relations (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 298, 302.) Accordingly, the court allows Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint that cures the defects identified above.