Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV36973, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36973    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: 39

PRC Restoration, Inc. v. Zaki Mansour

Case No. 22STCV36973

Breach of Contract

            Plaintiff PRC Restoration, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “PRC”) filed this action against Zaki Mansour (“Defendant”) asserting the following causes of action: (1) Breach of written contract, (2) Open book account, (3) Common counts, (4) Quantum meruit recovery, and (5) Foreclosure of a mechanics’ lien.  Plaintiff alleges that it entered into two separate contracts with Defendant.  (Complaint, ¶ 7.)  Per the contracts, Plaintiff performed emergency water damage mitigation services.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff performed everything required under the contracts.  (Id., ¶ 9.)  However, Defendant still owes the sum of $78,434.57.  (Id., ¶ 8.) 

Defendant demurs to the complaint.  “It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.”  (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  In ruling on a demurrer, the court must “liberally construe[]” the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the Plaintiff, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s first cause of action fails because it did not attach a copy of the complaint or repeat the terms of the contract verbatim.  Plaintiff is entitled to plead breach of contract in general terms.  “In an action based on a written contract, the plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language.”  (Ochs v. PacifiCare of Cal. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 782, 795, citing Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198-199.)  The complaint alleges sufficient facts, given the straightforward nature of the issues.  Regardless, Defendant may obtain further information regarding Plaintiff’s claims in discovery.  (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Defendant argues that the remaining causes of action are duplicative because they are based on the same facts.  Plaintiff is entitled to plead common counts in alternative to his claim for breach of contracts.  (Utility Audit Co. v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 950, 958.) 

The Court has considered Defendant’s remaining arguments and finds none to be persuasive.  Therefore, the Court orders as follows:

1.         The Court overrules Defendant’s demurrer.

2.         The Court orders Defendant to file an answer within thirty (30) days.

3.         Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.