Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case Number: 23STCV07201, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV07201, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07201 Hearing Date: February 15, 2024 Dept: 39

Mario Cazares v. TGB Promotions, LLC, et al.

Case No. 23STCV07201

Demurrer by Defendant TGB Promotions

Plaintiff Mario Cazares (“Plaintiff”), who is a professional boxer, filed this action against TGB Promotions, LLC (“TGB Promotions”) and Tom Brown (“Brown”) (collectively, “Defendants”), among others. In the operative second amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action:

1. Specific performance for breach of contract – Both defendants

2. Breach of contract – TGB Promotions

3. Violation of the Professional Boxing Safety Law, 15 U.S.C. § 6307e(b) – Both defendants

4. Violation of the Professional Boxing Safety Law, 15 U.S.C. § 6304(4) – Both defendants

5. Conspiracy to violate the Professional Boxing Safety Law – Both defendants

6. Unfair business practices – Both defendants

7. Promissory estoppel – Both defendants

8. Declaratory relief – TGB Promotions

9. Negligence – TGB Promotions

10. Negligence – Both defendants

Now, TGB Promotions demurs to the first, third, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of action.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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.)

DISCUSSION

A. First Cause of Action – Sustained without Leave to Amend

Plaintiff’s first cause of action is for specific performance for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges that he signed a contract with TGB Promotions, which afforded him two boxing matches against Osvary David Morrell Jr. To state a cause of action for specific performance, Plaintiff must allege a contract breach without an adequate legal remedy, that the underlying contract was reasonable and sufficiently definite to enforce, and that the requested performance is promised in the contract. (Real Estate Analytics, LLC v. Vallas (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 463, 472.)

Plaintiff seeks to compel TGB Promotions to promote a second boxing match between him and Morrell. (See Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 69.) There are several problems. First, the agreement provided that TGB Promotions agreed to promote a second fight between Morrell or another fighter agreed upon by both parties. Second, the Court cannot compel Morrell to fight Plaintiff because he is not a party to this action. (See Civ. Code, § 3390.) Finally, the second amended complaint does not allege sufficient facts that Plaintiff lacks a sufficient legal remedy. Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer to the first cause of action without leave to amend.

B. Third Cause of Action – Sustained with Leave to Amend

Plaintiff’s third cause of action is for violation of the Professional Boxing Safety Law, 15 U.S.C. § 6307e(b), which creates certain disclosure obligations for a “promoter.” Specifically, a promoter is not entitled to receive compensation in connection with a boxing match until it discloses to the boxer the following: (1) The amounts of compensation/consideration it has contracted to receive from the match; (2) All fees, charges and expenses associated with the match; and (3) Any reduction in the boxer’s purse contrary to a previously agreement. (See Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 85.) Plaintiff does not allege any facts demonstrating that he has been harmed as a result of the alleged failure to comply with this law. He states only that he “has sustained monetary damages in an amount of $5,000,000.” (Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 87.) This is not sufficient. While it is a low pleading standard, Plaintiff must allege some fact tying the alleged non-disclosure of his promoter’s compensation and expenses to his damages. Therefore, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

C. Fifth Cause of Action – Sustained without Leave to Amend

Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is for conspiracy to violate the Professional Boxing Safety Law. Conspiracy is a theory of liability, not a cause of action. (See Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 189, 206.) Putting that aside, TGB Promotions cannot conspire with its owner, Tom Brown. Therefore, the demurrer to the fifth cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

D. Sixth Cause of Action – Sustained with Leave to Amend

Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action is for unfair business practices. Plaintiff must allege a claim under Business and Professions Code section 17200 “with reasonable particularity . . . .” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.) Plaintiff makes only vague allegations against TGB Promotions, which do not state with particularity the bases for Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. (See Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 114.) For example, Plaintiff alleges that he “does not have income and cannot fight anyone else without violating the Boxing Contract.” (Id., ¶ 114(d).) However, the contract, a copy of which was attached to the complaint, does not appear to support this allegation. Therefore, the demurrer to the sixth cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.

E. Eighth Cause of Action – Sustained without Leave to Amend

A declaratory relief action is inappropriate when a plaintiff has an adequate remedy on other causes of action at trial. (See Hood v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 319, 324; California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Superior Court (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1617, 1624.)

The declaratory relief statute should not be used for the purpose of anticipating and determining an issue which can be determined in the main action. The object of the statute is to afford a new form of relief where needed and not to furnish a litigant with a second cause of action for the determination of identical issues.

(General of America Ins. Co. v. Lilly (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 465, 470.) In this case, the declaratory relief claim is duplicative of the breach of contract claims. The Court has discretion to decline to issue a declaratory judgment under these circumstances. (See AICCO, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 579, 590.) Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer to the eighth cause of action without leave to amend.

F. Ninth Cause of Action – Sustained with Leave to Amend

Plaintiff’s ninth cause of action is for negligence. Plaintiff alleges that TGB Promotions “promised” to arrange vias for Plaintiff’s coaches and failed to do so, as a result of which Plaintiff fought the first match without his coaches. To assert a claim for negligence, Plaintiff must allege a duty. The second amended complaint fails to do so. Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer to the ninth cause of action without leave to amend.

G. Tenth Cause of Action – Sustained without Leave to Amend

Plaintiff’s tenth cause of action is for negligence. This cause of action is nothing more than a claim for breach of contract. Therefore, the demurrer to the tenth cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Court sustains the demurrer. The Court grants leave to amend with respect to the third, sixth, and ninth causes of action. The Court denies leave to amend with respect to the remaining causes of action.

2. The Court orders Plaintiff’s counsel to file an amended complaint reflecting all of the Court’s rulings on the pending demurrers within thirty (30) days.

3. The deadline for Defendants’ answers/responsive pleadings shall be governed by statute.

4. Counsel for TGB Promotions shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.