Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20CHCV00573, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20CHCV00573 Hearing Date: July 26, 2022 Dept: F49
Dept. F-49
Date: 7-26-22
Case # 20CHCV00573
Trial Date: Not Set
DEMURRER
MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Renew Financial Group, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Lawrence Perle[1]
RELIEF REQUESTED
Demurrer to the Complaint
·
1st Cause of Action: Breach of
Contract
·
2nd Cause of Action: Specific
Performance
·
3rd Cause of Action: Declaratory
Relief
SUMMARY OF ACTION
On April 9, 2016 and November 22, 2016, Plaintiff Lawrence
Perle either executed or received loan proceeds in the amounts of $63,000 and
$83,000 from Defendants Renewable Funding and Renovate America. The loans were
undertaken for certain home improvement work purportedly under the Property
Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE) and California HERO program, which exist
for the purposes of facilitating energy and water efficiency upgrades to
homeowners.
Plaintiff represents use of the loan proceeds for a list
of upgrades, which amounted to $168,022 in charges from the identified
contractor defendants. Plaintiff, however, contends the work performed the work
performed only totaled a “reasonable market” value of $58,779.39. Plaintiff
apparently submitted the dispute to the lenders for resolution pursuant to
program rules, but represents the lenders refusal to intervene.
On September 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach
of Contract, Specific Performance, and Declaratory Relief. On February 9, 2021,
Defendant Renovate America, Inc. filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings based on
the December 21, 2020 filing of a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. On April 8, 2021,
Systems Paving, Inc. dba Systems Pavers answered. On March 23, 2022, the court
dismissed Renovate America, Inc. from the action.
RULING: Sustained
with Leave to Amend.
Plaintiff
represented the intent to file a first amended complaint prior to the hearing
date. As of the date of the tentative ruling publication cutoff, the court
electronic filing system shows no filed amended complaint. The demurrer is
therefore sustained with 30 days leave to amend.
If Plaintiff
in fact files a first amended complaint, which appears on the court electronic
filing system prior to the hearing date, the court still sustains the demurrer
with leave to amend. Under any circumstance, the first amended complaint was not
timely filed before the July 13, 2022 opposition due date. “Any pleading
may be amended once by the party of course, and without costs, at any time
before the answer or demurrer is filed, or after demurrer and before the trial
of the issue of law thereon, by filing the same as amended and serving a copy
on the adverse party, and the time in which the adverse party must respond
thereto shall be computed from the date of notice of the amendment.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 472, subd. (a).)
Because the
court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, the subject ruling now counts
towards the amendment limit guidelines. “In response to a demurrer and prior to
the case being at issue, a complaint or cross-complaint shall not be amended
more than three times, absent an offer to the trial court as to such additional
facts to be pleaded that there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be
cured to state a cause of action. The three-amendment limit shall not include
an amendment made without leave of the court pursuant to Section 472 , provided the amendment
is made before a demurrer to the original complaint or cross-complaint is
filed.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (e)(1).)
The court also notes that Paragraph 14 of the complaint
specifically references a requirement for arbitration pursuant to the “Program
Documents,” and Plaintiff in fact specifically demands submission to binding
arbitration. The court advises the parties to consider addressing any possibility
for submission to arbitration issues prior to any potential, future substantive
hearing on the merits of the action presented in the operative pleading.
Moving party to give notice.
[1]On July 7, 2022, Plaintiff
filed a “Notice of Filing First Amended Complaint in Response to Demurrer…”