Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case 20STCV11378 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 20STCV11378, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11378 Hearing Date: September 14, 2022 Dept: 74

20STCV11378 CHARGERS FOOTBALL COMPANY vs ROKIT WIRELESS, INC

Defendant Rokit Phone Company, LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

Background

On March 20, 2020, Plaintiff Chargers Football Company, LLC filed this action against Defendant Rokit Wireless, Inc. asserting a single cause of action for breach of contract. The complaint alleged Defendant breached the terms of the parties Sponsorship Agreement.

On July 29, 2021, Defendant filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings due to the filing of a bankruptcy petition.

On January 25, 2022, the Court an entered order staying the entire action as of July 29, 2021.

On January 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed three fictitious name amendments to the complaint adding Defendants Jonathan Kendrick, Clinton Ehrlich, and Rokit Phone Company, LLC as Does 1-3.

On June 21, 2022, the Court issued an order providing “Status conference re bankruptcy is held. Counsel represents to the court that the bankruptcy case has been concluded.”

On August 16, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint without prejudice.

Demurrer

On July 5, 2022, Defendant Rokit Phone Company, LLC filed the instant demurrer to the complaint.

The demurrer is unopposed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(c).)

Meet and Confer

The demurrer is accompanied by the declaration of Wyatt Butler, which complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41.

Discussion

Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A complaint need not allege evidentiary facts noting plaintiff’s proof. (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) A “demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732.)

A special demurrer to a complaint is appropriate when the grounds of the pleading are uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f); Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180, 1191.) Courts typically disfavor demurrers based on uncertainty, which the court strictly construes even when the pleading is uncertain in some respects. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Breach of Contract

To state a claim for breach of contract, a Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish: (1) a contract between the parties; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff from the breach. (See e.g. Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)

Plaintiff alleges it entered into a contract with Rokit Wireless, Inc., not Defendant Rokit Phone Company, LLC. (Compl. ¶ 4. See e.g. Gordon Bldg. Corp. v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Ass'n (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 1, 6 (“insofar as breach of contract is concerned, Gordon's cross-complaint is fatally defective, . . . because it fails to show that Gordon was a party to the contract.”).) Defendant Rokit Phone Company, LLC was added to the complaint as Doe 3. While there are legal theories upon which a non-party may be bound by a contract or liable for contract damages, no such facts are alleged as to Defendant Rokit Phone Company, LLC or the Doe Defendants. Rather, the complaint states “Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Each Doe Defendant is in some manner responsible, liable, and obligated to Plaintiff in connection with the occurrences, transactions, and obligations alleged herein.” (Compl. ¶ 3.) Accordingly, the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to state a claim against Defendant Rokit Phone Company, LLC.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED. As this is the first pleading challenge, Plaintiff is given 20 days leave to amend.