Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case Number: 23STCV11283, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV11283, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11283 Hearing Date: August 21, 2023 Dept: 39

Jay S. Rothman v. David Marco Weber

Case No. 23STCV11283

Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings

David Marco Weber (“Weber”) hired Jay Stuart Rothman (“Rothman”), an attorney to represent him in a legal matter. The case settled, following which the parties had financial disputes. Rothman filed a complaint alleging that Weber owes him $1,830.40 in reimbursement for Westlaw legal research fees, and $8,000 in reimbursement for the mediation. Although there is a one-page written retainer agreement, Rothman did not file a breach of contract action, which would have proceeded in small claims court or limited civil court, given that the dispute arises over $9,830.40. Instead, Rothman asserted a single cause of action for declaratory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060. Rothman seeks a judicial declaration that he is entitled to these fees under the contract.

Code of Civil Procedure section 438(b)(2) states: “The Court may upon its own motion grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” The Court noticed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in each of these cases by issuing a written order explaining why the complaint do not appear to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060. The Court afforded notice and opportunity to be heard by authorizing the parties to file written responses and by scheduling a hearing. The Court has reviewed and considered the parties’ response to the motion.

The Court grants its own motions for a judgment on the pleadings. Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 permits “[a]ny person interested . . . under a contract . . . may, in cases of actual controversies relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective partners, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a . . . determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1060.) The instant case does not assert a proper claim for declaratory relief. A declaratory relief action lies when there is some genuine confusion over the language in a contract because interpretation of contracts is a judicial function. (See Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1125.) There is no such ambiguity in this case. To the contrary, the contract is clear. The contract states: “Client agrees to reimburse Attorneys upon demand for expenditures that Attorneys have advanced on behalf of client . . . including but not limited to . . . research and/or paralegal services . . . .” (See Complaint, Exh. #1, ¶ 5.” The contract also states: “Client clearly understands that all expenses and charges of any nature incurred by Attorneys are Client’s obligation and are not the responsibility of Attorneys.” (See Complaint in Case Number 23STCV12529, Exh. #1, ¶ 6.) Thus, this dispute does not require any interpretation of a contract’s language, which is the purpose of section 1060.

At heart, Rothman’s case asserts a substantive claim for breach of written contract. It is not lawful to bring a claim for breach of contract and the affirmative defenses as claims for declaratory relief. (See 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.) Indeed, Rothman’s action should have been filed as a small claims court case or a limited civil case. By filing this action in the form of a declaratory relief action, Rothman has circumvented the jurisdictional minimum of $25,000 required to file a case in the unlimited civil court. In so doing, he avoids the limited discovery of small claims and limited civil courts, and asserts a trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 1062.3. This is not appropriate. At heart, Rothman misunderstands the purpose of a declaratory relief action. The Court’s only role would be to interpret the language in the contract. The Court cannot order monetary damages in a declaratory relief action.

Finally, 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.) The Court exercises its discretion to do so.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Court grants its own motion for judgment on the pleadings.

2. The Court advances and vacates all dates and orders that this case shall be dismissed.

3. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to Rothman filing a proper action.

4. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.