Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV13359, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff 2633 Manning Cheviot Hills LLC filed this action against Defendants Chase N’ Properties Inc. and Cassandra Chase, and on August 3, 2023, it filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”).

On November 13, 2023, Defendants filed a demurrer, and on November 15, 2023, they filed a motion to strike.

Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of the records of 2633 Manning Cheviot Hills LLC v. Cassandra Chase and Chase N’ Properties Inc. (Case No. 19LBSC03130). The request is granted.

Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of an executed version of the Joint Venture Agreement. Because the complaint refers to this agreement, it is an appropriate matter for judicial notice. (Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 956 fn. 6.)

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.) “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.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has already asserted the same claims in a small claims court action, which was dismissed with prejudice on November 6, 2020. (Demurrer at p. 10.) On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a small claims action against Cassandra Chase. Plaintiff alleged that Chase owed $6,000 because “[defendant] borrowed money from me and has not repaid it. I have asked repeatedly. . . . 6/15/18 she borrowed the $. . . . It’s in writing she is supposed to pay me every month to pay this money.” At the non-jury trial on November 6, 2020, Plaintiff did not appear, and the action was dismissed with prejudice.

“Small claims decisions have only limited collateral estoppel effect as to issues actually litigated and are not res judicata.” (Jellinek v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 652, 659.) The small claims action was not litigated on the merits.

Defendants argue that the first, second, and third causes of action are uncertain because the attached Joint Venture Agreement is unsigned, so it is unclear whether the alleged contract is oral or written. (Demurrer at pp. 12-13.)

The FAC alleges that on June 5, 2018, the parties “entered into a written Joint Venture Agreement.” (FAC ¶ 8.) “A true and correct copy of the form of the Joint Venture Agreement” is attached as Exhibit A. Although it is unsigned, Plaintiff provides a copy of the executed agreement with its opposition. Moreover, the pleadings stage is not an evidentiary stage; the unsigned attachment is sufficient to allege the terms of the contract at issue.

Defendants argue that restitution, the second cause of action, is not a cause of action. (Demurrer at p. 13.)

“The law respects form less than substance.” (Civ. Code, § 3528.) No particular form of pleading is required to invoke the doctrine of restitution. (Dinosaur Development, Inc. v. White (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1310, 1315.)

Defendants argue that claims based on the uncertain contract are barred by the statute of limitations for oral contract. (Demurrer at pp. 14-15.) As discussed above, Plaintiff pleads breach of a written contract, which is subject to a four-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 337, subd. (a).) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the agreement beginning on August 5, 2019, so this action (filed June 12, 2023) is timely.

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

The Court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subds. (a)-(b).)

Plaintiff moves to strike the FAC for the same reasons set forth in the demurrer. (Motion at p. 4.)

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.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court