Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01535, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01535    Hearing Date: January 30, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.      INTRODUCTION

         On July 5, 2023, Luxe Pasadena, LLC and Boston Dynasty Trust (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against AMCAL General Contractors, Inc. (“AMCAL”) and Mutual Roofing Company, Inc.

          On October 5, 2023, AMCAL filed a cross-complaint. Cross-defendant Standard Pacific Plumbing, Inc. (“SPP”) was substituted as Roe 6 via an amendment filed on October 23, 2023.

On August 28, 2024, SPP filed this demurrer to the cross-complaint’s Second and Ninth Causes of Action for equitable indemnity and negligence.

II.     LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.) “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. [Citation.]” (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].) Allegations are to be liberally construed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) In construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations. (Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769.)

III.    DISCUSSION

A.   Ninth Cause of Action: Negligence

SPP demurs to AMCAL’s second cause of action for negligence on the grounds that it fails to allege that a violation of a duty independent from the contract entered between AMCAL and SPP. (Demurrer, p. 4.) Under the economic loss rule, a party seeking to recover for a defendant’s faulty services cannot recover in tort unless damage beyond purely economic loss can be alleged. (Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 979, 988.) In the context of commercial construction, a plaintiff may recover in tort for defective construction only if the defects caused “property damage or personal injury.” (Aas v. Supr. Ct. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627 635-636.) The extent of the damages alleged by AMCAL are costs incurred to correct SPP’s defective work and defend Plaintiffs’ action. (XC, ¶ 49.) Nowhere has AMCAL alleged “property damage or personal injury.” Accordingly, the negligence claim is barred by the economic loss rule.

B.   Second Cause of Action: Equitable Indemnity

“It 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 Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Brown & Toland Medical Group (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1040.) “With limited exception, there must be some basis for tort liability against the proposed indemnitor.” (Id.) “‘Generally, it is based on a duty owed to the underlying plaintiff, although vicarious liability and strict liability also may sustain application of equitable indemnity.’” (Id. [quoting BFGC Architects Planners, Inc. v. Forcum/Mackey Construction, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 848, 852).)

Here, SPP argues that AMCAL’s Second Cause of Action for Equitable Indemnity fails because there is no underlying tort liability alleged. The Court agrees that AMCAL fails to allege how SPP is liable in tort to AMCAL or that SPP owed any duty to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the demurrer to the Second Cause of Action is SUSTAINED.

IV.    CONCLUSION

SPP’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 30th day of January 2025

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.