Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23BBCV00225, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00225    Hearing Date: May 17, 2024    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

ELLIOT SHELL, individually and as Trustee

of SHELL FAMILY TRUST DATED 7/30/91 and the ELLIOT LEWIS SHELL EXEMPT TRUST U/D/T 1/13/83; and THE ELLIOT LEWIS EXEMPT TRUST U/D/T 1/13/83,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CARLA CHRISTOFFERSON, an individual; ADAM SHELL, an individual; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23BBCV00225

Hearing Date: May 17, 2024

Time: 9:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTIES: Defendant CARLA CHRISTOFFERSON

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs ELLIOT SHELL and THE ELLIOT LEWIS SHELL EXEMPT TRUST U/D/T 1/13/82

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

Defendants Adam Shell and Carla Christofferson are a married couple involved in dissolution proceedings in Family Court initiated by Defendant Shell prior to the filing of this case.

On January 30, 2023, Defendant Shell’s father, Plaintiff Elliot Shell, as an individual and as a trustee of three trusts (the Shell Family Trust Dated 7/30/91, Elliot Lewis Shell Exempt Trust U/D/T 1/13/83, and The Elliot Lewis Shell Exempt Trust U/D/T 1/13/83) filed a complaint against defendants alleging (in substance) that he and the defendants had entered into an oral agreement whereby he loaned defendants money from the trusts that defendants had agreed to repay.

Christofferson1 demurred to the Complaint, and Plaintiff responded filed a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”). Christofferson demurred again to each cause of action in the FAC. On December 1, 2023, the court overruled defendant’s demurrer to the breach of contract, money lent, and account stated causes of action. The court sustained the demurrer to the money had and received cause of action without leave to amend. The court sustained the demurrer to the restitution based on unjust enrichment case of action with leave to amend granted “only in so far as Plaintiff may add facts separate of the loan agreement which constitute unjust enrichment.” (Demurrer to the SAC, Exh. 1.)

On December 18, 2023, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (the “SAC”) and alleged the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) money lent; (3) account stated; and (4) restitution based on unjust enrichment.

Christofferson now demurrers to the SAC’s fourth cause of action for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff opposed and Christofferson replied.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party may object to a complaint or cross-complaint; the party may file a demurrer, an answer, or both. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 430.30.) The demurrer may be filed within 30 days after service of the complaint or cross-complaint unless extended by stipulation or court order. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.40(a).)

As a general matter, in a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Id.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

DISCUSSION

As the Court previously noted in its December 1, 2023 order, there is a split of authority on whether unjust enrichment is a cause of action. “The phrase ‘Unjust Enrichment’ does not describe a theory of recovery, but an effect: the result of a failure to make restitution under circumstances where it is equitable to do so.” (Lauriedale Associates, Ltd. v. Wilson (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1439, 1448.) “Unjust enrichment is ‘a general principle, underlying various legal doctrines and remedies,’ rather than a remedy itself.” (Melchior v. New Line Cinema (2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 779, 793.) “[A]s a matter of law, a quasi-contract action for unjust enrichment does not lie where . . . express binding agreements exist and define the parties’ rights.” (California Medical Ass’n, Inc. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of California, Inc. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 151, 172; see also Wal-Noon Corp. v. Hill (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 605, 650)

Christofferson argues, and the court agrees, that Plaintiff’s new allegations quantify the extent of the alleged enrichment but fail to allege that the enrichment was derived from anything other than the loan agreement.

Based on the foregoing, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer.