Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV22472, Date: 2024-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22472    Hearing Date: September 12, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     September 12, 2024               TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Silver Streak v. Wonderland Studios, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                 23STCV22472           

DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Castaic Studios, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Silver Streak

CASE HISTORY:

·         09/18/23: Complaint filed.

·         01/10/24: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for breach of contract and fraud regarding the lease of commercial real property. Plaintiff entered into a rental agreement with Defendants for office space, sound stages, and recording studios for production of a television series. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misrepresented the condition of the premises, which were not fit for the purpose.

Defendant Castaic Studios, LLC, demurs to the ninth cause of action for foreclosure of mechanic’s lien in the First Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Castaic Studios, LLC’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant Castaic Studios, LLC, demurs to the ninth cause of action for foreclosure of mechanic’s lien in the First Amended Complaint.

//

Legal Standard

A demurrer tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) 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 pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 747.) The ultimate facts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403; see also Shields v. County of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 133 [stating, “[o]n demurrer, pleadings are read liberally and allegations contained therein are assumed to be true”].) “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.)

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who has filed the pleading subject to the demurrer and file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a).) However, an insufficient meet-and-confer process is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(4).)

The Declaration of Farah Faramarzi attached to the demurrer states that Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel requesting dismissal of the action against Castaic for the reasons set forth in the demurrer on February 6, 2024. (Declaration of Farah Faramarzi ISO Demurrer ¶ 4.) Attorney Faramarzi states that Plaintiff’s counsel responded with a flat disagreement regarding the merits of the complaint, without providing supporting reasons. (Id. ¶ 5.) A single exchange of emails does not constitute a proper meet-and-confer process as described by section 430.41. Nevertheless, the Court will address the merits of this demurrer in the interest of an expeditious resolution of the challenge to the pleadings.

Ninth Cause of Action: Foreclosure of Mechanics’ Lien

            Defendant Castaic Studios, LLC demurs to the ninth cause of action for foreclosure of a mechanics’ lien for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

            Civil Code section 8400 states that a mechanics’ lien may be recorded by “[a] person that provides work authorized for a work of improvement,” and that such persons “includ[e], but [are] not limited to . . . (a) Direct contractor; (b) Subcontractor; (c) Material supplier; (d) Equipment lessor; (e) Laborer; and (f) Design professional.” (Civ. Code § 8400.) Before recording a lien claim, a claimant generally “shall give preliminary notice to. . . (1) the owner or reputed owner; (2) the direct contractor or reputed direct contractor to which the claimant provides work, either directly or through one or more subcontractors; [and] (3) the construction lender or reputed construction lender, if any.” (Civ. Code § 8200(a).) However, a claimant with a direct contractual relationship with an owner or reputed owner is required to give preliminary notice only to the construction lender or reputed construction lender, if any. (Civ. Code § 8200(e)(2).) If preliminary notice is required, it must be given “not later than 20 days after the claimant has first furnished work on the work of improvement.” (Civ. Code § 8204(a).)

            Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s ninth cause of action is deficient because, first, Plaintiff does not have standing under section 8400. Defendant asserts that because Plaintiff is a production company and hired contractors to make improvements to the subject property, it does not have standing to record a mechanics’ lien. Defendant fails to justify this assertion and fails to cite any authority standing for the position that a corporate entity lacks standing under section 8400 because it is described as a “production company.” The Court finds this argument entirely unpersuasive.  The Complaint includes an allegation that Plaintiff provided service, labor and/or materials that were used to remodel the premises.  (FAC, ¶ 88.)  This allegation, which must be taken as true on a demurrer, is sufficient to establish standing to file and pursue payment on a mechanic’s lien.

            Defendant also argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to record a mechanics’ lien or foreclose upon it because Plaintiff did not allege that preliminary notice was timely given pursuant to Civil Code section 8200. In opposition, Plaintiff concedes that preliminary notice is not alleged in the First Amended Complaint, but argues that preliminary notice was not required because the First Amended Complaint alleges a direct contractual relationship between Plaintiff and the reputed owner of the premises, Wonderland Studios. (FAC ¶ 15.) Thus, Plaintiff contends, subdivision (e)(2) of Civil Code section 8200 applies and exempts Plaintiff from the preliminary notice requirements. In reply, Defendant asserts that section 8200(e)(2) is not applicable because the First Amended Complaint admits that Plaintiff is now aware that it was not in a direct contractual relationship with the actual owner. This contention is specious: whether Plaintiff is now, at present, aware of the true ownership of the subject property does not bear on whether Wonderland Studios was the reputed owner at the time of the improvements. The Court is therefore not persuaded that the ninth cause of action is deficient in this respect.

            Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Defendant’s demurrer to the ninth cause of action is OVERRULED.

//

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendant Castaic Studios, LLC’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  September 12, 2024                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.