1.      Intentional Fraudulent Transfer

Plaintiff’s first cause of action alleges intentional fraudulent transfer against all defendants.[1] A transfer is fraudulent, both as to present and future creditors, if it is made “with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor.” (Civ. Code, § 3439.04, subd. (a).) The statute “permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee.” Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 657, 663.)

Here, Defendants argue that they are not the proper parties to whom Plaintiff has directed this cause of action, as they are not the debtors to Plaintiff. (Dem. 5:19–28.)[2] Defendants further argue that nonmoving defendant L & J Assets, LLC is the debtor in the instant action, and while Plaintiff identifies Defendants as transferees, he fails to allege any single transfer. (Id., 6:3–9.)

Plaintiff argues in opposition that he has specifically alleged the transfers at issue in paragraphs 9–13 of his SAC, and the role each of the moving Defendants had in those transfers. (Pl.’s Opp., 5:4–8.)[3] The Court notes that Plaintiff quotes to the incorrect paragraph numbers in his opposition, and that the correct paragraph numbers should be paragraphs 13–16 and 22 of the SAC. In these paragraphs, Plaintiff alleges that beginning in August 2011, L & J Assets, LLC “started transferring assets comprising collection lawsuits and / or judgments for money against third parties” to Defendants without proper consideration, with intent to defraud such creditors as Plaintiff. (SAC ¶¶ 13–16.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts to support a cause of action for fraudulent transfer under Civil Code section 3439.04. Accordingly, the demurrer is overruled as to Plaintiff’s first cause of action.

2.      Conspiracy

Plaintiff’s second cause of action alleges that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy. “Civil conspiracy is not an independent tort. Instead, it is a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration.” (City of Industry v. City of Fillmore (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 191, 211–212.) “The elements of a civil conspiracy are (1) the formation of a group of two or more persons who agreed to a common plan or design to commit a tortious act; (2) a wrongful act committed pursuant to the agreement; and (3) resulting damages.” (Id. at p. 212.)

Here, Defendants argue that this cause of action necessarily fails “since Plaintiff is not successful in pleading a cause of action for fraudulent transfers against Defendants.” (Dem. 7:5–6.) However, as set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a cause of action for fraudulent transfers. Moreover, Plaintiff’s SAC specifically alleges that Defendants conspired between themselves “with the sole intent and purpose to prevent Plaintiff from satisfying his claim in the underlying action against the collection accounts and Judgments in the name of L&J ASSETS, LLC by changing the alleged ‘owner’ of these assets.” (SAC ¶ 19.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct by executing the fraudulent transfers, causing Plaintiff to suffer damages in the amount of $126,000.00. (SAC ¶¶ 20–21.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts to support a cause of action for conspiracy. Accordingly, the demurrer is overruled as to Plaintiff’s second cause of action.