Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2023-00029135-CU-CO-CTL, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 03, 2024

04/05/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Contract - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00029135-CU-CO-CTL YEKHILEVSKY VS STEPACHEV [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT KRYSTSINA URADZIMSKAYA'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF DMITRY YEKHILEVSKY'S COMPLAINT is OVERRULED.

Defendant KRYSTSINA URADZIMSKAYA ('Defendant') asserts Plaintiff Dmitry Yekhilevsky's ('Plaintiff') complaint fails to state a cause of action and that the allegations are vague, ambiguous, and uncertain. 'In determining whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the trial court may consider all material facts pleaded in the complaint and those arising by reasonable implication therefrom; it may not consider contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.' (SLPR, L.L.C. v. San Diego Unified Port District (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 284, 316.) When considering a demurrer, '[t]he pleading must be read as if it contained all matters of which the court could properly take judicial notice even in the face of allegations in the pleading to the contrary.' (Weiner v. Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 39, 47.) '[W]e give the pleading a reasonable interpretation by reading it as a whole and all of its parts in their context.' (Mead v. Sanwa Bank California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 561, 564.) 'If the facts appearing in the attached exhibit contradict those expressly pleaded, those in the exhibit are given precedence.' (Id. at 567–568.) 'A complaint must contain '[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.' (§ 425.10, subd. (a)(1).) This fact-pleading requirement obligates the plaintiff to allege ultimate facts that 'as a whole apprise[ ] the adversary of the factual basis of the claim. [Citations.]' (Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 869, 886 [Citation omitted].) '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.' (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) The first cause of action is for breach of contract. 'The elements of a claim for breach of contract are: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) the plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance of the contract; (3) defendant's breach; and (4) damage to plaintiff resulting from the breach.' (State Compensation Insurance Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 422, 449.) Plaintiff alleges a contract, but as to Defendant Plaintiff does not allege Defendant was a party to the contract, but that she 'was married to Defendant Krystsina Uradzimskaya and she is jointly liable for this community debt.' (Complaint, ¶ BC-1.) Plaintiff further alleges '[f]ailing to pay the principal amount of $165,000 plus interest at the legal rate of 10% from the date of breach, February 15, 2023,' and performance or excuse. (Complaint, ¶¶ BC-2 and BC-3.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges damage from the breach. (Complaint, ¶ BC-4.) The allegations are not too vague to put Defendant on notice. It is clear Defendant is aware of the claims against her – that she is liable for breach of the promissory note attached to the complaint. Rather, Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3094749 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  YEKHILEVSKY VS STEPACHEV [IMAGED]  37-2023-00029135-CU-CO-CTL Defendant's main argument is that she is not liable for her ex-husband's debt because she was unaware of the contract.

Defendant's assertion that she cannot be liable for her ex-husband's debt is based on purported information that exists outside the four corners of the complaint. Further, Defendant does not seek judicial notice of information that Defendant asserts precludes this action. Spouses are liable for contract debts 'made' during the marriage – a breach does not need to occur during the marriage for the community to be liable. (In re Marriage of Feldner (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 617, 622-623.) However, 'no one should suffer by the act of another (Civ. Code, § 3520; cf. In re Marriage of Stitt (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 579, 588 [195 Cal.Rptr. 172] [excusing a husband from the attorneys fees incurred in connection with the wife's embezzlement]), in particular a wrongful act that does not benefit the marital community.' (Id. at 623.) 'An innocent spouse is not required to share in losses incurred by the intentionally tortious or criminal conduct of a spouse where there is no benefit to the community.' (In re Marriage of Hirsch (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 104, 110.) Plaintiff cites Family Code section 916, which provides that '[t]he separate property owned by a married person at the time of the division and the property received by the person in the division is not liable for a debt incurred by the person's spouse before or during marriage, and the person is not personally liable for the debt, unless the debt was assigned for payment by the person in the division of the property.' (Fam. Code, § 916(a)(2).) Defendant then asserts that the debt was not allocated to Defendant in the divorce judgment. However, Defendant does not seek judicial notice of the divorce judgment and same does not appear in the four corners of the complaint. Further, Defendant does not provide judicially noticeable information that the community did not benefit from the contract debt incurred by Defendant's ex-husband. Therefore, the Court cannot consider the assertion that Defendant cannot be liable for the debt. The demurrer is overruled as to the breach of contract cause of action.

The elements for money lent are: (1) the defendant is indebted to plaintiff in a certain sum; and (2) for money lent, paid or expended to, or for, the defendant. (Moya v. Northrup (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 276, 280.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant became indebted to Plaintiff in a certain sum and that it was 'for money let by plaintiff to defendant at defendant's request.' (Complaint, ¶ CC-1.) The cause of action is properly pled. The demurrer is overruled as to the money lent cause of action.

The demurrer is overruled in its entirety.

The Court notes that Defendant filed a motion to strike. (ROA # 16.) It appears that Defendant did not reserve a hearing date for the motion. Defendant's motion is not before the Court. (Local Rule 2.1.19 ['Failure to reserve a date for hearing will result in the demurrer, motion, ex parte application, or order to show cause hearing not being heard.']) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3094749