Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV07932, Date: 2024-10-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV07932    Hearing Date: October 16, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Defendants Nargiza Babadjanova and Express Document Solutions  

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC

Demurrer to Complaint

The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with this demurrer.  No reply papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Defendants Nargiza Babadjanova and Express Document Solutions (“Defendants”) move the court for an order sustaining their demurrer to the Complaint filed by plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC (“Plaintiff”).

The court overrules Defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it is uncertain because the Complaint is not ambiguous or unintelligible.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)

The court overrules Defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because (1) Plaintiff has alleged facts establishing that Defendants, in offering immigration legal services as immigration consultants (Compl., ¶¶ 13, 15), violated the Immigration Consultant Act by, inter alia, (i) failing to obtain, during the time their business has existed, immigration consultant bonds in violation of Business and Professions Code section 22443.3 (Compl., ¶ 14), and (ii) holding themselves as professionals experienced in immigration law and as attorneys despite not having obtained a law degree (Compl., ¶¶ 14, 16, subds. (c), (d)), and (2) Defendants have not shown, on the face of the Complaint or matters of which the court has taken judicial notice, that Defendants are “a subsidiary of [a] California licensed attorney,” such that they cannot be held liable for each alleged violation of the Immigration Consultant Act.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Dem., p. 8:15-23; Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 22446.5, subd. (b), 22441, subd. (d) [“Every person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of an immigration consultant shall only offer nonlegal assistance or advice in an immigration matter as defined in subdivision (a)”]; Tran v. Nguyen (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 523, 528 [on demurrer, courts “do not consider factual contentions not contained in the complaint, unless they are matters subject to judicial notice”].)

The court notes that, in their notice of demurrer, Defendants also assert that the first cause of action does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff does not have legal capacity to sue, and (2) it is barred by the statute of limitations.  (Notice of Dem., pp. 2-3, ¶¶ 2-4.)  However, Defendants did not present argument or authority establishing that the first cause of action fails on those grounds, and therefore have not met their burden to show that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

ORDER

            The court overrules defendants Nargiza Babadjanova and Express Document Solutions’s demurrer to plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC’s Complaint.

            The court orders defendants Nargiza Babadjanova and Express Document Solutions to file an answer to plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC’s Complaint no later than 10 days from the date of this order.

            The court orders plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 16, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court