Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2022-01245501, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling
1. Demurrer to Amended Complaint
2. Motion to Strike Portions Of Complaint
3. Case Management Conference
Motion 1:
Defendant Image Auto Group, Inc.’s demurrer to plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [FAC] is SUSTAINED as to the 2nd and the 5th causes of action, with leave to amend, based on failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The remainder of the demurrer is OVERRULED.
Plaintiff is granted 10 days leave to file an amended complaint. As to the 5th cause of action for unjust enrichment, leave to amend is limited to alleging unjust enrichment and/or restitution as a remedy in connection with another valid cause of action.
1st cause of action: breach of contract.
This cause of action states sufficient facts. (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821 [elements]; Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198–199 [“plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language”]; FAC, ¶¶ 6-8 [relevant terms of written contracts], 12 [plaintiff’s performance], 7-9, 13 [breach, proximately caused damages].) Any purported missing details can be determined through discovery. (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135 [uncertainty demurrers strictly construed because “ambiguities can reasonably be clarified under modern rules of discovery”].)
2nd cause of action: fraud.
This cause of action is not alleged with sufficient specificity. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645 [elements; specific allegations required].) There are no facts alleged as to who made the representations on behalf of defendant, or their authority to speak on behalf of defendant. (Id.) There are also no facts to support knowledge of falsity or intent to defraud; rather, these elements are alleged as conclusions only. (FAC, ¶ 18.) However, the remaining elements of this cause of action appear sufficient.
3rd cause of action: conversion.
This cause of action states sufficient facts. (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1240 [elements]; FAC, ¶ 7-9, 23 [plaintiff’s right to possession of both the vehicles and the sale proceeds], 24 [defendant’s interference], 25 [proximately caused damages].)
4th cause of action: breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
This cause of action states sufficient facts. (CACI 325 [elements]; FAC, ¶¶ 6-8 [underlying contracts], 12 plaintiff’s performance], 7-9 [all conditions required for defendant’s performance have occurred; proximately caused damages].) Further, ¶¶ 7 and 8 allege that defendant issued numerous checks, specifically identified by number and amount, only to later issue stop payments on each, thus sufficiently alleging defendant’s unfair interference with plaintiff’s right to receive the benefits of the contract.
5th cause of action: unjust enrichment.
There is no separate cause of action for unjust enrichment. (Melchior v. New Line Productions, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 779, 794.) As to this cause of action, leave to amend is limited to alleging unjust enrichment and/or restitution as a remedy in connection with another valid cause of action.
6th cause of action: violations of unfair competition law.
Moving defendant only argues that this cause of action fails because it is dependent on other causes of action. As discussed above, the demurrer is overruled as to numerous claims, which can serve as the underlying predicate for a UCL claim.
Motion 2:
Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED, with leave to amend, as to the punitive damages allegations (FAC, ¶¶ 20, 26, Prayer ¶ 7), and otherwise DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435, 436.)
As discussed above, the demurrer is sustained as to the fraud claim, and there are insufficient specific facts alleged to support punitive damages in connection with any other cause of action. (Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193 [claims for punitive damages “must include specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious … [p]unitive damages may not be pleaded generally”].) Rather, these elements are alleged as conclusions only. (FAC, ¶¶ 20, 26.)
There are also no facts pled to support entity liability. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).) Plaintiff only pleads the language of the statute, without any supporting facts. (FAC, ¶¶ 20, 26.)
The remainder of the motion to strike is DENIED. Attorney fee allegations need not be pled at all; thus, no point is served in striking them. (Snatchko v. Westfield LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 469, 497.) Further, those portions of plaintiff’s prayer for damages seeking prejudgment interest and liquidated damages are not limited to plaintiff’s UCL claim.
*** CMC continued to September 25, 2023 at 9AM. ***
Moving party shall give notice of all the above.