Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21NWCV00405, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00405    Hearing Date: October 27, 2022    Dept: SEC

CULINARY INTERNATIONAL, LLC v. SOBOREA FOODS

CASE NO.: 21NWCV00405

HEARING:  10/27/22

#3

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant STERLING BV, INC.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

Opposing Party to give Notice.

This breach of contract action was filed by Plaintiff CULINARY INTERNATIONAL, LLC (“Plaintiff”) on June 22, 2021. After Defendant STERLING BV, INC.’s Demurrer to the Complaint was SUSTAINED with leave to amend, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on July 6, 2022.

The FAC alleges the following relevant facts:

·        “In or about April of 2020, Defendant Saborea sold Plaintiff Culinary pinto beans that were contaminated with foreign materials. The foreign materials were not detectable at the time of purchase with reasonable inspection.” (FAC ¶10.)

·        “Plaintiff Culinary manufactured cooked beans with the contaminated pinto beans believing that the pinto beans were merchantable and fit for the purpose of making cooked beans.” (FAC ¶11.)

·        “Plaintiff Culinary had an existing contract with Defendant Sterling for the purchase of the cooked beans by Sterling from Culinary.” (FAC ¶12.)

·        “In or about May of 2020, Defendant Sterling informed Plaintiff that the cooked pinto beans it had purchased from Plaintiff contained foreign materials.” (FAC ¶15.)

·        “In or about October 2020, Plaintiff informed Defendant Saborea that Defendant Sterling had reported existence of foreign material within the pinto beans that Plaintiff had purchased from Defendant Saborea. Defendant Saborea rejected Plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the size and texture of the foreign material, if any existed, was within the excepted tolerances of the industry and U.S. Department of Agriculture.” (FAC ¶16.)

·        “Laboratory testing of the foreign material appears to indicate that the foreign material originated outside of Plaintiff’s manufacturing process and Plaintiff did not cause or contribute to the introduction or existence of the foreign material. Therefore, this matter appears to be a dispute between Defendant Sterling’s position and Defendant Saborea’s position with respect to the existence and acceptability of the foreign material. [¶] Based on the results of the testing, Plaintiff is not responsible for the foreign materials found in the beans. Consequently, either Defendant Saborea or Defendant Sterling is responsible for any damages resulting from the foreign materials.” (FAC ¶¶18-19.)

·        “Due to the nature of the two contracts pertaining to the same exact beans, and the relationship between the parties, any litigation between Plaintiff and either of the Defendants arise from the same transaction and occurrence. As a result, Defendants Saborea, as well as Sterling, are both indispensable parties to this action.” (FAC ¶22.)

Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (3) Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose; (3) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (5) Indemnity/Contribution; and (6) Declaratory Relief.

Defendant STERLING BV, INC. (“Sterling”) specially and generally demurs to Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action.

Uncertainty

Sterling argues that Plaintiff’s claims are fatally uncertain. This argument lacks merit because “[a] special demurrer for uncertainty is not intended to reach the failure to incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading but is directed at the uncertainty existing in the allegations actually made.” (Butler v. Sequeira (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 143, 145-146.) Moreover, demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif. Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.) Here, it is clear from Sterling’s other arguments that it understands what Plaintiff at least attempt to allege, and there is no true uncertainty. The demurrer is not sustained on the basis of uncertainty.

Declaratory Relief

There are two essential elements for declaratory relief: “(1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to [plaintiff’s] rights or obligations.” (Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 405, 410.) “Declaratory relief operates prospectively only, rather than to redress past wrongs.” (Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1404.) The “actual controversy” requirement concerns the existence of present controversy relating to the rights and legal duties of the respective parties pursuant to contract, statute or order.” (see CCP §1060; see also Maguire v. Hibernia S. & L. Soc. (1944) 23 Cal.2d 719, 728.)

Sterling argues that the sixth cause of action is subject to demurrer because only past wrongs are involved, and there are no facts alleged against it.

Declaratory relief is a broad remedy, and the rule that a pleading is to be liberally construed is particularly applicable to a claim for declaratory relief. (See City of Tiburon v. Northwestern Pac. R.R. Co. (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 160, 170.) Here, the Court finds the FAC adequately alleges that an actual and immediate controversy exists between the parties regarding their rights and duties with respect to each contract with Plaintiff related to the sale(s) of contaminated pinto beans. Sterling demurs on the basis that this claim merely seeks to adjudge rights and duties that Plaintiff is already asserting against Saborea. However, “[t]he mere circumstance that another remedy is available is an insufficient ground for refusing declaratory relief, and doubts regarding the propriety of an action for declaratory relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 generally are resolved in favor of granting relief.” (Filarsky v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419, 433.)

“Even if the trial court possesses subject matter jurisdiction in a declaratory relief action filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1060, however, the court properly may refuse to grant relief where an appropriate procedure has been provided by special statute and the court believes that more effective relief can and should be obtained through that procedure. [Citations.]” (Id.)  

The Court declines to exercise its discretion to refuse to grant relief at this stage.  Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that an actual, present controversy exists as to whether the foreign material allegedly contained in the subject pinto beans falls within the acceptable industry tolerances and U.S.D.A. guidelines. Plaintiff maintains that it is not responsible for any damages resulting from the foreign materials found in the beans. Plaintiff alleges that either Saborea or Sterling are responsible for any damages caused by the beans. Saborea filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff in this action and Sterling has alleged damages from use of the beans. Accordingly, the Court will OVERRULE the Demurrer.