Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV00522, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV00522    Hearing Date: August 26, 2022    Dept: W

ELIJAH BERNAL v. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD HEDDING, et al.

Defendant RONALD D. HEDDING’s demurrer to PLAINTIFF’s complaint

Date of Hearing:        August 26, 2022                                Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              W                                                        Case No.:        22VECV00522

Moving Party:            Defendant Ronald D. Hedding (erroneously sued as Law Offices of Ronald D. Hedding.)

Responding Party:     None

Meet and Confer:      Yes. (Borsuk Decl. ¶ 2.)

BACKGROUND

On April 12, 2022, Plaintiff Elijah Bernal filed the operative Complaint against Defendant Roald D. Hedding (erroneously sued as Law Offices of Ronald Hedding) asserting causes of action for (1) General Negligence; and (2) Legal Malpractice.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct in connection with a retainer agreement Plaintiff signed to receive legal representation in his criminal case.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant Ronald D. Hedding’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

DISCUSSION

Demurrer

Defendant demurs to complaint on the grounds that it is fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against him and uncertain.

i.                    First Cause of Action – Professional Negligence

Defendants demur to the first cause of action for legal malpractice on the ground that it has not been sufficiently alleged.

To prevail on legal malpractice a party must prove four elements: “(1) the duty of the attorney to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as members of his or her profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the attorney's negligence.”¿¿(Namikas¿v. Miller¿(2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1574, 1581.)  “[T]he elements of causation and damage are particularly closely linked” for legal malpractice claims.¿(Id. at 1582.) “The¿plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that but for the attorney's negligent acts or omissions, he would have obtained a more favorable judgment or settlement in the action in which the malpractice allegedly occurred.”¿(Id.)  

Here, Defendant argues that the Complaint fails to allege any facts to articulate what he did or did not do that caused Defendant to breach his duties to Plaintiff. (Demurrer at pp. 6-7.) Instead, the Complaint merely asserts conclusory statements in lieu of factual allegations. (Demurrer at pg. 7.) The Court agrees. Notably, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to this demurrer. Upon review of the Complaint, it fails to allege any facts to support a claim of legal malpractice. The exhibits submitted along with the Complaint are insufficient on their own. Also, if Plaintiff intends on asserting a fraud cause of action, then such a claim must be pleaded with particularity. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)

Accordingly, the court sustains the demurrer to the Complaint with leave to amend. In the interest in judicial efficiency, the Court declines to address Defendant’s demurrer based on uncertainty.