Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV30407, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV30407    Hearing Date: July 26, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendants Oren Gold, Nataly Gold, and Gold Aesthetic, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Micro Art, Inc.

(1)   Demurrer to Complaint

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendants Oren Gold, Nataly Gold, and Gold Aesthetic, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Micro Art, Inc.

(2)   Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with the demurrer and motion to strike.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Micro Art, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Oren Gold (“Oren”), Nataly Gold (“Nataly”), and Gold Aesthetic, Inc. (“Gold Aesthetic”) (collectively, “Defendants”), on August 17, 2021, asserting six causes of action for (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) unfair business practices, (3) breach of contract, (4) intentional interference with prospective business advantage, (5) interference with contract, and (6) nuisance.  

Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s first through sixth causes of action and move to strike Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages, attorney’s fees, restitution, and injunctive relief.

DEMURRER

The court sustains Nataly and Oren’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint because it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Nataly and Oren since Plaintiff has not alleged (1) that Plaintiff entered into the lease with Nataly and Oren, instead alleging that Plaintiff entered into the lease with Gold Aesthetic (Compl., ¶ 9), or (2) that Nataly and Oren are the landlords of the property in light of the allegation that Plaintiff executed the subject lease with Gold Aesthetic.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)  Plaintiff makes no specific reference to Nataly and Oren, instead referring to landlord-defendants, and therefore has failed to sufficiently allege a basis for their liability.  The court notes that Plaintiff, in its opposition, has argued that the alter ego doctrine may impose liability on Nataly and Oren.  However, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to support liability under the alter ego doctrine in its Complaint.

The court sustains Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s first cause of action for intentional misrepresentation because it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since it fails to allege every element of the cause of action for intentional misrepresentation with the specificity required by California law (and particularly “where, to whom, and by what means” each of the representations was made).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.)

The court sustains Gold Aesthetic’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for violation of California’s unfair competition law on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since the only fraudulent behavior alleged is based on the first cause of action for intentional misrepresentation, the demurrer to which the court has sustained.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

The court sustains Gold Aesthetic’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for violation of California’s unfair competition law on the ground that it is uncertain because Plaintiff attributes the wrongful conduct to “Landlord,” which is an undefined term in the Complaint and therefore renders it ambiguous as to which defendant Plaintiff is referencing.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)  The court notes that the Complaint makes reference to Exhibits A and B, which are purportedly attached to the Complaint, and which may define the term “Landlord.”  (See Compl., ¶ 9.)  However, there are no exhibits attached to the Complaint as filed with the court to clarify this ambiguity. 

The court sustains Gold Aesthetic’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for breach of contract on the ground that it is uncertain because it is ambiguous and unintelligible since (1) Plaintiff alleges that “Landlord” is the person or entity that breached the described duties and contractual responsibilities, but “Landlord” has not been defined in the Complaint, and (2) Plaintiff’s cause of action is captioned as a breach of contract cause of action, but is supported by allegations that the landlord breached a duty to act and therefore sounds in negligence.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)  

The court sustains Gold Aesthetic’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for intentional interference with prospective business advantage on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff fails to allege the existence of an economic relationship that contains the probability of future economic benefit to Plaintiff, and instead alleges that potential clients have opted not to use Plaintiff’s services (Compl., ¶ 48).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 505, 512, 517-518 [this tort “‘presuppose[s] the relationship existed at the time of the defendant’s allegedly tortious acts lest liability be imposed for actually and intentionally disrupting a relationship which has yet to arise”’].)

The court sustains Gold Aesthetic’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for intentional interference with prospective business advantage on the ground that it is uncertain because Plaintiff has attributed the wrongful behavior to “Landlords,” which is an undefined term in the Complaint and therefore renders the cause of action ambiguous or unintelligible for the reasons set forth above.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)

The court sustains Gold Aesthetic’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff did not allege that Defendants had knowledge of the contractual relationships with which Plaintiff alleges Defendants were interfering.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Jenni Rivera Enterprises, LLC v. Latin World Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 766, 782 [the defendant must have knowledge of the contract with which he is interfering].)

The court sustains Gold Aesthetic’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations on the ground that it is uncertain because Plaintiff has only alleged that “Landlord” engaged in the wrongful conduct which interfered with Plaintiff’s contractual relations, but has not defined the term “Landlord.”  Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is therefore ambiguous and unintelligible because it cannot be determined from the allegations which person or entity was acting as the landlord and caused Plaintiff harm.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)

The court overrules Gold Aesthetic’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for nuisance on the ground that it states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has alleged a substantial and unreasonable interference with Plaintiff’s property based on the lack of heat and air conditioning.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

The court sustains Gold Aesthetic’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for nuisance on the ground that it is uncertain because Plaintiff has only alleged that “Landlords” created the nuisance, but has not defined the term in the Complaint, making it ambiguous and unintelligible.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)  

MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendants move the court for an order striking (1) Plaintiff’s claim for punitive and exemplary damages; (2) Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees; and (3) Plaintiff’s claim for restitution and injunctive relief.

The court denies as moot Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages, attorney’s fees, injunctive relief, and restitution because the court has sustained Defendants’ demurrer to each cause of action.   

ORDER

            The court sustains defendants Oren Gold, Nataly Gold, and Gold Aesthetic, Inc.’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s first through sixth causes of action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e), (f).)

            The court denies as moot defendants Oren Gold, Nataly Gold, and Gold Aesthetic, Inc.’s motion to strike.

The court grants plaintiff Micro Art, Inc. 20 days leave to file a First Amended Complaint to amend its first through sixth causes of action.

The court directs defendants Oren Gold, Nataly Gold, and Gold Aesthetic, Inc. to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  July 26, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court