Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV13626, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13626    Hearing Date: October 10, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On February 7, 2023, the Court sustained Defendant Carlos A. Lainez’s demurrer to Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council LLC’s first amended complaint (“FAC”).

On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”).  On March 27, 2023, Defendants Carlos A. Lainez and Guadalupe Lainez filed a demurrer to the SAC.

A demurrer for sufficiency 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, accepting the alleged facts as true.  (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.)  A special demurrer for uncertainty under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f) is disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that defendant or plaintiff cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her.  (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Defendants argue that the SAC alleges “nothing more than conclusory blanket accusations against Defendants, that Defendants were acting as immigration consultants and violated the entirety of the provisions of the ICA, without articulating any specific facts as to when and how Defendants were acting as immigration consultants; who the specific victims are; and how Defendants violated any of the specific provisions of the ICA.”  (Demurrer at p. 4.)

The SAC alleges that Defendants are “in the business of acting as immigration consultants.”  (SAC ¶ 8.)  In the sole cause of action, the SAC alleges that Defendants engaged in certain conduct that violates the Immigration Consultant Act.  (SAC ¶¶ 13-20.)  Unlike the FAC, which was nothing more than a recitation of the possible violations, the SAC contains factual allegations.  For example, “Defendants advertise and market their services on various internet media, including without limitation, ‘Google My Business,’ and via their website ‘inmigracionla.com.’”  (FAC ¶ 14.)  Their website “purports to offer assistance with obtaining permanent resident cards, family-based visas, citizenship, DACA, and adjustment of status.”  (FAC ¶ 15.)  “Defendants assisted Stephania Ortiz with DACA and later, with adjustment of status to permanent residency.”  (FAC ¶ 17.)  Mr. Lainez admitted that he does not provide any of his customers with the required written disclosures about his bond and immigration consultant contract or the statutorily mandated receipts.  (FAC ¶ 18.)  Defendants also did not have the requisite immigration consultant bond from 2010 to 2019.  (FAC ¶ 20.)  These allegations now contain facts to support the alleged statutory violations.

Defendants argue that the “SAC fails to provide reliable and specific evidence of wrongdoing, victims, forms receipts, contracts or referral fees other than to tell the Court these stories on his own information and belief without any support or evidence.”  (Demurrer at p. 5.)  No supporting evidence is required; a complaint must simply contain sufficient factual allegations.

Defendants attempt to discredit the merits of some factual allegations with their own exhibits.  (See Demurrer at pp. 4-5.)  “Because a demurrer challenges defects on the face of the complaint, it can only refer to matters outside the pleading that are subject to judicial notice.”  (Arce ex rel. Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 556.)  The Court therefore cannot—and does not—consider Defendants’ exhibits.

The demurrer is OVERRULED.  Defendants are ordered to file an answer within 10 days.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(j)(1).)

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 10th day of October 2023