Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 20TRCV00137, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20TRCV00137    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿ 

¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                    January 17, 2023¿¿ 

¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                      20TRCV00137

¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                           Vincent M. Lucy v. Matthew R. Stall, et al                             .¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                   Defendant, Matthew R. Stall, as Administrator of the Estate of Richard J. Stall Jr., and as Trustee of The Richard J. Stall Jr. Trust

¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff, Vincent M. Lucy

¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                           None set¿ 

¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                                  (1) Demurrer¿ 

¿ 

Tentative Rulings:                     (1) Defendant’s Demurrer to the 6th and 7th causes of action is OVERRULED.  The Court will consider oral argument at the hearing as to whether the 5th cause of action meets that Coronet standard for relation back as to a new written “instrumentality” that was not alleged previously. 

¿¿ 

¿ 

I. BACKGROUND¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿ 

¿ 

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on February 11, 2020. Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on July 28, 2021. Plaintiff alleges the following facts: Plaintiff was a longtime friend and client of an attorney named Richard J. Stall, Jr. (“decedent”). In 1993, Plaintiff and decedent entered into an oral agreement in which Plaintiff loaned decedent $348,418.02 at 10 percent interest. No specific time for repayment is specified other than payment upon demand. Plaintiff alleges that decedent dutifully forwarded to Plaintiff monthly interest payments. In 1996, Plaintiff and decedent entered into a written promissory note in which Plaintiff loaned decedent $150,000.00 at 10 percent interest. No specific time for repayment is specified in the note other than payment upon demand. In 2018, decedent died. In 2019, Plaintiff made claims to the Estate of Richard J. Stall, but each of the claims were denied.

 

On May 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (“TAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Oral Contract; (2) Common Count – Account Stated; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Common Count – Account Stated; (5) Breach of Written Contract; (6) Legal Malpractice; and (7) Breach of Fiduciary Duties.

¿ 

B. Procedural¿¿ 

¿ 

On June 17, 2022, Defendants filed this Demurrer. On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On January 9, 2023, Defendant filed a reply brief. On January 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed an objection to the reply brief.  

¿ 

¿II. MOVING PARTY’S GROUNDS FOR THE DEMURRER¿¿ 

¿ 

¿¿Defendant, Matthew R. Stall, as Administrator of the Estate of Richard J Stall Jr., and as Trustee of the Richard J. Stall Jr Trust (“Defendant”) demurs to Plaintiff’s TAC on the grounds that he alleges: (1) The Fifth Cause of Action, for Breach of Written Contract, fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is barred by the statute of limitation; (2) The Sixth Cause of Action, for Legal Malpractice, fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) The Seventh Cause of Action, for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is barred by the statute of limitations.

¿¿ 

¿III. ANALYSIS¿ 

¿ 

There have been multiple demurrers filed in this case during multiple rounds of amended complaints.  Judge Tanaka previously held that the Defendant may be estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense against the First, Second, Third, and Fourth causes of Action. (January 25, 2022 Minute Order.)  With this case being recently reassigned from Judge Tanaka to Judge Frank, that prior Order remains in effect absent some showing that the law has changed or that there is some other legal basis for re-arguing matters previously decided.  None have been raised by the Demurrer nor the Reply brief (with the potential exception of the laches argument added as grounds for Demurrer that was not raised in the Demurrer itself).  But the previously ruled-upon legal issues are controlling on this fourth, and hopefully final, round of pleadings. 

 

With respect to the three newly asserted causes of action, this Court notes that (1) the January 25, 2022 Order found that Plaintiff adequately pleaded grounds for estoppel to plead the statute of limitations, (2) a creditor’s claim need not specify a legal theory but rather only the acts, time period, and amount of the claim against an estate (Lundberg v. Katz (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 38, 44), and (3) at least two of the newly asserted causes of action relate back to the original complaint and are thus not time-barred. The relation-back doctrine allows an amended (or second amended or third amended) complaint to be filed outside the limitations period if it relates back to a pleading that was filed within the period of limitations.  (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 408-409.)  For the relation-back doctrine to apply, the amended complaint must (1) rest on the same general set of facts as does the original complaint, (2) involve the same injury as the original complaint, and (3) refer to the same instrumentality as does the original complaint.  (Ibid.; see also Burgos v. Tamulonis (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 757, 763 (Burgos).) The “instrumentality” element derives from personal injury litigation to prevent a plaintiff from belatedly raising, for example, a defective product in an otherwise time-barred amended pleading when the timely pleading failed to mention any allegedly defective product or only mentioned an entirely different product.  (See Coronet Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d  342, 347.)  The Court will consider oral argument at the hearing as to whether the 5th cause of action meets that Coronet standard or not as it appears to raise a new written “instrument” that was not alleged previously. 

            Here, the relation back factors are met and the 6th and 7th causes of action alleged in the TAC survive demurrer.  Whether any or all of these causes of action can be proven, whether they will survive summary judgment, or whether they can be established if any trial is conducted, all remain to be seen.  But at the pleading stage, Plaintiff has stated sufficient allegations to move this case to the next stage of this litigation.  As for the belatedly asserted laches argument, Defendant can assert that affirmative defense and the Court will consider its application and proof at a later stage. 

¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

¿¿ 

¿