Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV01364, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV01364    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: W

JANET YONJUNG JHA v. SMAN TONYALA, et al.

demurrer with motion to strike the cross-complaint

Date of Hearing:        May 2, 2023                                       Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              W                                                        Case No.:        22VECV01364

Moving Party:            Cross-Defendant Janet Yonjung Jha

Responding Party:     No opposition

BACKGROUND

On October 19, 2022, Plaintiff Janet Yonjung Jha filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Sman Tonyala and Buakai Tonyala asserting causes of action for specific performance and breach of written agreement. Plaintiff alleges on August 30, 2022, Plaintiff, as buyer, and Defendants, as sellers, entered into a California Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which Plaintiff agreed to purchase and Defendants agreed to sell for a total purchase price of $900,000.00 certain residential real property. However, on September 6, 2022, Plaintiff alleges Defendants, through their broker and agent, expressly repudiated the Agreement by unequivocally notifying Plaintiff that Defendants would refuse to perform their obligations under the Agreement and to sell the Subject Property to Plaintiff.

Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff, Federico Cabral, Mission Real Estate, Inc. and Gerardo “Jerry” Ascencio on November 28, 2022, asserting causes of action for indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud in the inducement and misrepresentation, conspiracy, elder abuse, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty.

[Tentative] Ruling

Cross-Defendant Jha’s Demurrer to the First and Second Causes of Action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Cross-Defendant Jha’s Demurrer to the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Causes of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Cross-Defendant Jha’s Motion to Strike is MOOT.

DISCUSSION

Cross-Defendant demur to the each and every cause of action asserted in the Cross-Complaint filed by Defendants/Cross-Complainants Sman Tonyala and Buakai Tonyala on the grounds the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Cross-Defendant Jha.

Indemnification/Apportionment of Fault

Cross-Defendant Jha first demurs to the first and second causes of action for Indemnification and Apportionment of Fault on the grounds the theories are not available in a breach of contract action. The court agrees. As noted by Cross-Defendant Jha, “[i]t is well-settled in California that equitable indemnity is only available among tortfeasors who are jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's injury.” (Stop Loss Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. Brown & Toland Medical Group (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1040.) “California law does not permit equitable apportionment of damages for breach of contract[.]” (Id. at fn. 2.)

Because Cross-Defendant’s complaint arises from the alleged breach by the Tonyala’s, the Tonyala’s indemnity and apportionment of fault claims are not viable against Cross-Defendant’s Jha’s specific performance and breach of contract claims.

Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Cross-Complainant’s first and second causes of action.

Declaratory Relief

Cross-Defendant Jha demurs to the third cause of action for declaratory relief on the grounds the claim is fatally uncertain.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 provides that a person may bring an action for declaratory relief if he or she “desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another, or in respect to, in, over or upon property . . . .” (CCP §1060.) A request for declaratory relief may be brought alone or with other relief. (See id.)

Plaintiff alleges “the validity of the Real Estate Purchase Agreement attached as an Exhibit to the FAC and whether or not it should be considered void or voidable due to the fact that the Toyala’s lacked the capacity to sign sales documents as a result of the power of attorney attached as Ex. A and due to the fact that there was no interpreter used by Cabral to assist the Toyala’s with their English.”

The court agrees. First, there is no Exhibit A attached to the complaint. Moreover, as alleged, Cross-Complainant’s declaratory relief claim does not state a bona fide dispute between Cross-Defendant Jha and Cross-Complainant.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Intentional Infliction of Mental Harm/Emotional Distress

Cross-Defendant Jha demurs to the fourth cause of action on the grounds the cross-complaint is completely devoid of facts which demonstrate any outrageous conduct by Jha and there are no facts alleged which establish the nature, extent or duration of the emotional distress purportedly suffered by the Tonyalas.

Cross-Complainants allege Cross-Defendnat Jha has acted maliciously and oppressively by continuing to press the issue of depriving the Tonyala’s of their family home even after the transaction was cancelled. This is insufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The elements for a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) an actual and proximate causal link between the tortious conduct and the emotional distress.  (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050.)   

Cross-Complainants have not alleged any severe or emotional distress or how Cross-Defendant’s purported extreme and outrageous conduct of “continuing to press the issue of depriving the Tonyala’s of their family home” caused the distress.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the fourth cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Other Causes of Action

Cross-Complainants allege additional causes of action against Cross-Defendant Jha including fraud in the inducement and misrepresentation, conspiracy, elder abuse, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith. However, the causes of action are not supported by any factual allegations. “To be valid, a pleading must contain factual allegations supporting the existence of all the essential elements of a known cause of action. Plaintiffs cannot simply cite a few facts[.]” (Mobley v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1239.)

Accordingly, the court demurrer to Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Motion to Strike

Cross-Defendants seek to strike Cross-Complainant’s request for “Exemplary damages in the sum of $5 million dollars[]” and “General damages for emotional pain and suffering in an amount according to proof”.

Because the court has sustained the demurrer to the complaint, Cross-Defendants’ motion to strike is moot. The court notes the complaint is devoid of factual allegations of Cross-Defendants’ alleged oppressive, fraudulent or malicious conduct.

Accordingly, Cross-Defendant Jha’s motion to strike is MOOT.