Judge: Michael Small, Case: 23STCV08240, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 23STCV08240    Hearing Date: January 10, 2025    Dept: 57

DISCOVERY MOTION

The motion of Defendant Rick Roussin, Byoll LLC, and IPTC, LLC (collectively, "the Defendants") to compel Plaintiff Judith Mendez to provide further responses to Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set One, is granted.  Plaintiff must provide further responses to the Special Interrogatories by February 14, 2025.   The Defendants' request in their motion for an order imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,795 against Plaintiff and her former counsel Patricia Renee Rodriguez reflecting the amount of attorney's fees Defendants say they incurred in connection with the motion is granted.  The monetary sanctions must be paid to the Defendants by March 14, 2025.

DEMURRER

The Defendants' unopposed demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is sustained with leave to amend as to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action. 

The third cause of action impermissibly combines multiple distinct claims into one cause of action.  The fourth cause of action, which is for intentional misrepresentation, fails for lack of specificity.  The fifth cause of action, which is for concealment, fails because it rests on allegations that the Defendants concealed their fraud and that cannot be a basis for a concealment claim.  The sixth cause of action, which is for fraudulent foreclosure, fails because that is not a cognizable claim.  The seventh cause of action, which is for unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices under Business and Professions Code Section 17200, fails because the First Amended Complaint contains insufficient allegations of an underlying, unlawful, or fraudulent act to support the claim. 

The demurrer is overruled as to the first cause of action for breach of contract and second cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.   The demurrer's argument that the breach of contract claim is fatally uncertain, which would then vitiate the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fearing, is foreclosed by the order of the Court (per Judge Mel Red Recana) granting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. In that order, the Court ruled that the contract claim was not uncertain and that Plaintiff had a likelihood of success on the merits of that claim.   

Plaintiff must serve and file a Second Amended Complaint by February 28, 2025.

CONTINUANCE REQUEST

It appears from the case docket that the Plaintiff has reserved hearing dates on motions to continue the hearing on the discovery motion and demurrer.  The Court is not continuing the hearing on the motion and demurrer.   Plaintiff could have, and should have, requested a continuance well before today's hearing.  She had ample time to do so but did not do it.