Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV34242, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.
If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.
2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.
3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
Case Number: 21STCV34242 Hearing Date: August 17, 2022 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: August
17, 2022
CASE NAME: Kasper Rune Sogaard, et al. v. Ridgeley
Partners, LLC, et al.
CASE NO.: 21STCV34242
DEFENDANTS’
DEMURRER WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Pacific Premier Bank and
Dwayne Butler
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Kasper Sogaard, et
al.
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
order sustaining the demurrer as to the seventh, tenth, and twelfth causes of
action
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Demurrer
as to the seventh and tenth causes of action is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.
2. Demurrer
as to the twelfth cause of action is OVERRULED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On September 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against
defendants Ridgeley Partners, LLC; Pacific Premier Bank dba Commerce Escrow
Company; and Dwayne Butler, among other defendants. Defendants Pacific Premier
Bank dba Commerce Escrow Company (“Commerce Escrow”) and Dwayne Butler
(collectively, the “Defendants”) are the alleged escrow agents. The Complaint
asserts the following 12 causes of action: (1) Specific Performance; (2) Breach
of Contract; (3) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4)
Intentional Misrepresentation; (5) Concealment; (6) Violation of Civil Code §
1102, et seq.; (7) Negligent
Misrepresentation; (8) Violation of Civil Code § 1088; (9) Professional
Negligence – Real Estate Agent; (10) Professional Negligence – Escrow Agent;
(11) Professional Negligence – Title Officer; and (12) Declaratory Relief.
LEGAL STANDARD
A demurrer tests the sufficiency of 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 any 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. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court¿(1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902,
905.)¿Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the
pleading or are judicially noticed.¿(CCP §§ 430.30, 430.70.)¿The only issue a
demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a
cause of action.¿(Hahn, supra,¿147 Cal.App.4th¿at¿747.)
Judicial Notice:
The Court may take judicial notice of the
existence of the records, but not the truth of matters asserted in such
records. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6
Cal.App.4th 1548, 1565). As a result, although the court may take judicial
notice that the documents exists, the Court may not take judicial notice of the
truth of the facts in the documents.
Additionally,
Evidence Code only allows the Court to take judicial notice of certain types of
documents. The court may take judicial notice of “official acts of the
legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of
any state of the United States,” “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or
(2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United
States,” and “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to
dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to
sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code § 452, subds. (c),
(d), and (h).) The Evidence Code does not allow the Court to take judicial
notice of discovery responses or parts of cases, such as depositions
Defendant requests the court take judicial notice of the
following:
1. “Additional
Escrow Instructions and Terms (General Provisions)” (hereinafter referred to as
the “General Provisions”).
The Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED. The Defendants
are requesting judicial notice of this document for the truth of what is
asserted, not that it exists.
Procedural Matter:
Meet and Confer:
The Declaration of Jonathan L. Endman indicates that he met
and conferred with Christopher Delaplane on April 29, 2022, regarding this
potential demurrer. The parties were unable to resolve the matter. (Dec. Endman
¶ 2).
Service:
The proof of service attached the Demurrer and reply
indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel was served via email. The proof of service
attached to the Opposition indicates service was effected via email.
ANALYSIS:
Defendants Pacific Premier Bank and Dwayne Butler demur on
the grounds that the seventh, tenth and twelfth causes of action fail to state
sufficient facts to constitutes causes of action.
1.
Negligent
Misrepresentation
Defendants demur on the grounds
that the seventh cause of action fails to state sufficient facts to constitute
a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation for two reasons: (1) escrow
instructions are not Defendants’ representations and (2) even so, Plaintiffs
affirmed the instructions.
“The elements of negligent misrepresentation are “(1) the
misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact, (2) without reasonable
ground for believing it to be true, (3) with intent to induce another's
reliance on the fact misrepresented, (4) justifiable reliance on the
misrepresentation, and (5) resulting damage.” (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA
v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc.
(2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 35, 50.)
In
granting the first Demurrer, the Court offered guidance to Plaintiffs.
Specifically, the Court stated that any amendments “must allege the facts that
show the escrow instructions required the inclusion of Parcel 27 to the
conveyed parties.” Plaintiffs added paragraph 18, alleging that by signing the
Escrow Holder Acknowledgement, Defendants agreed to be bound by Paragraph 29 of
the Purchase Agreement. Paragraph 29 referenced other paragraphs in the
Purchase Agreement that would be part of the escrow instructions, including
paragraph 6 that listed Parcel 27 as part of the sale. If that was the extent
of Paragraph 29, Plaintiffs’ allegations may be sufficient to survive a
Demurrer. However, a careful review of the entirety of Paragraph 29 undermines Plaintiffs’
allegations. Paragraph 29 explicitly states that in addition to using select
paragraphs of the Purchase Agreement as escrow instructions, Escrow holder is also
to use “any related counter offers and
addenda, and any additional mutual instructions to close escrow.” Plaintiff
attached a counter offer dated April 30, 2020 (Exhibit B), addenda—the preliminary title report (Exhibit D)—; and
additional mutual instructions dated June 16, 2020 (Exhibit C) to the Amended
Complaint. Each of these documents were prepared subsequent to the April 25,
2020 Purchase Agreement and each expressly excluded Parcel 27 from the
instructions. Notably, the amended Escrow instructions were acknowledged, signed
and approved by Plaintiffs.
Because
the Defendants only had a duty to follow the later generated documents, which did
not mention Parcel 27, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Defendants
made a misrepresentation. “[A]n escrow holder “has no general duty to police the
affairs of its depositors”; rather, an escrow holder's obligations are “limited
to faithful compliance with [the depositors'] instructions.” (Summit Financial Holdings, Ltd. v.
Continental Lawyers Title Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1160A, 711, as modified on denial
of reh'g (May 15, 2002).) “The agency created by the escrow is limited—limited
to the obligation of the escrow holder to carry out the instructions of each of
the parties to the escrow.” (Id.) Accordingly,
once again, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Defendants made any
misrepresentation.
The
Demurrer as to the Seventh Cause of Action is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.
2.
Professional
Negligence
Defendant demurs to the tenth
cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to establish that
Defendants had a duty.
“To state a cause of action for
professional negligence, a party must show “(1) the duty of the professional to
use such skill, prudence and diligence as other members of the profession
commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection
between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or
damage resulting from the professional negligence.” (Giacometti v. Aulla, LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1137.)
As stated above, the FAC fails to allege
a breach of an establish a duty. The FAC allegation
that Defendants breached the duty by failing to ensure the legal description
included Parcel 27 is not a breach of a
duty. (FAC ¶ 88). Defendants’ duty was to obey the amended instructions
contained within the exhibits attached to the FAC, none
of which included a reference to Parcel 27. What Plaintiffs are actually
suggesting is that Defendants had a duty to ignore the amended escrow
instructions and, instead, follow the initial instructions contained within the
Purchase Agreement. An escrow agent has no duty to police the affairs of the
depositors, thus, Defendants would have breached their duty if they had elected
to follow the revoked, initial
instructions. (Summit, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 711.) Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to
establish that Defendants breached a duty.
Demurrer as to the Tenth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED, with
leave to amend.
3.
Declaratory
Relief
Defendant demurs to the twelfth
cause of action on the grounds that this cause of action is duplicative of the
other causes of action.
“To qualify for declaratory relief
under section 1060, plaintiffs were required to show their action (as refined
on appeal) presented two essential elements: “(1) a proper subject of
declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable
questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party.” (Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th
527, 546) ““Declaratory relief operates prospectively to declare future rights,
rather than to redress past wrongs.” (County
of San Diego v. State of California (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580, 607.)
The FAC fails to sufficiently
plead a cause of action for declaratory relief. Paragraph 95 states that there
is a controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding determining their “respective” obligations surrounding the
purchase agreement, the Counter, the Legal Description Instruction and the
“Prelim.” All of these, are past
events, because escrow closed according to the FAC on June 25, 2020. (FAC ¶
22.)
Demurrer as to the Twelfth Cause
of Action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend
Leave to Amend:
Leave to amend should be liberally
granted if there is a reasonable possibility an amendment could cure the
defect. (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 1018,1035.)
The Plaintiff has the
burden of demonstrating that leave to amend should be granted, and that the
defects can be cured by amendment. (“Plaintiff must show in what manner he can
amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his
pleading.” Goodman v. Kennedy (1976)
18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) The opposition indicates Plaintiff’s “stand ready to amend the FAC’ but provide no details or
information on how they seek to accomplish this feat. In challenging the first
Demurrer, Plaintiffs referenced a document that “they
claim was part of the written instructions,” which indicated that Parcel 27 was
part of the premises. The Court granted leave to amend to provide more detail
regarding this document. In the FAC it is clear that the document in question
was the Purchase Agreement, which the Court has indicated is insufficient since
subsequent documents modified the initial instructions. No other documents have
been even been alluded to by Plaintiff that can cure the defects noted in two
Demurrers. Accordingly, leave to amend is Denied.
Plaintiffs’ request to amend to add a new
cause of action for Breach of Duty is also denied as Plaintiff have yet to
point to any duty that was breached.
Conclusion:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
Demurrer as to the Seventh, Tenth,
and Twelfth Causes of Action is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August
17, 2022 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court