TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar:    3

Date:          3/14/2025

Case No: 24 NNCV00969 Trial Date: None Set 

Case Name: Cosich, et al. v. Americana LA San Corp, et al.

DEMURRER

MOTION TO STRIKE

Moving Party:            Defendants LA San Corp, LA San Corp. dba S.M.A. Management, Sasan Azarakhsh,  Sohrab Azarakhsh     

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Amber Cosich and Starr Enterprises, LLC      

RELIEF REQUESTED:

CAUSES OF ACTION: from Complaint   

1) Tortious Interference with Contract

2) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 

3) Discrimination (Race and Gender) 

4) Civil Harassment 

5) Trespass 

6) Breach of Confidence 

7) IIED 

8) NIED 

9) Unfair Business Practices 

10) Wrongful Eviction 

11) Retaliatory Eviction 

12) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability 

13) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment 

14) Demand for Rent For Uninhabitable Dwelling 1942.4

15) Injunctive and Declaratory Relief 

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Plaintiff alleges that with defendant SMA MGMT’s consent and support, plaintiff procured the additional three rental units, applied for the necessary licenses and permits, and launched a rental business.  The complaint alleges that defendants initially offered to mentor and offer plaintiff applicable business practices to encourage the success of the business, but within a year of establishing momentum with the business, defendants entered into a tortious scheme to remove and undermine plaintiff’s business, learning trade secrets and marketing strategies developed and implemented by plaintiff in her rental business, and took such steps as misleading plaintiff’s subtenants with false information about plaintiff and entering units without notice or warnings, and engaging in unlawful and retaliatory evictions of at least three units. 

It is also alleged that defendants engaged with plaintiff during the process of her procuring rental assistance, and they were kept informed of plaintiff’s application status, but pursued an eviction of plaintiff from her home while the application was pending approval and thereafter approved, but then reneged on a promise to wait for approval of ULA rents, and evicted plaintiff from her home. 

RULING:

[No Opposition]

Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint:

Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND on the overall ground that the complaint names two separate plaintiffs and four separate defendants, but does not clearly allege which cause of action is alleged by which plaintiff, when some causes of action can only be brought by an individual, not a business entity, and the complaint does not clearly specify which defendant is alleged to have engaged in specific wrongdoing. 

Demurrer to the third cause of action for discrimination is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND on the ground the cause of action is confusingly brought by both plaintiffs, one of which is not sufficiently alleged to be a protected person, and fails to allege what specific acts each specific defendant engaged in which could be construed as intentional discrimination based on race or gender. 

Demurrer to the sixth cause of action for breach of confidence is OVERRULED.  All elements of such a cause of action have been sufficiently alleged.  See Berkla v. Corel Corp. (USDC E.D. Cal. 1999) 66 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1150-1151 (applying California law).

Demurrer to the seventh cause of action for IIED is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND on the ground the cause of action itself fails to sufficiently allege extreme and outrageous conduct. 

Demurrer to the twelfth cause of action for breach of implied warranty of habitability and fourteenth (erroneously referred to in body of memorandum as the “thirteenth”) cause of action for demand for rent for uninhabitable dwelling are OVERRULED.  The causes of action sufficiently allege the lack of characteristics of a habitable dwelling, including lack of an adequate electrical system and heat.  See Civil Code section 1941.1 (a)(4) and (5).   [Complaint, para. 133].  

Demurrer to the fifteenth cause of action for injunctive and declaratory relief is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND on the ground that, although such a cause of action is listed in the caption of the complaint, there is no separate cause of action set forth under such a heading, and no charging allegations are made as to any of the defendants to support such claims.  

Demurrer on all other grounds is OVERRULED. 

Ten days leave to amend. 

Defendants’ UNOPPOSED Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint is MOOT in light of the sustaining of the demurrer with leave to amend.  The Court notes, however, that several of the causes of action, including some not specifically challenged on demurrer, ordinarily would support claims for punitive damages.    

The parties are ordered to meet and confer in full compliance with CCP §§ 430.41 and 435.5 before any further demurrer or motion to strike may be filed.  

 DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE 

VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances.  Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances.  Please note that in the case of video appearances, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. 

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.