Negron vs. Negron

The demurrer to the seventh cause of action is OVERRULED.

Eighth Cause of Action for Unfair Business Practices

The UCL does not proscribe specific activities, but broadly prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” (Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 638, 643-44.) It governs anti- competitive business practices as well as injuries to consumers, and has as a major purpose the preservation of fair business competition. (Ibid.) “A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.” (Khoury v.

Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.) Rhyan is correct the FAC fails to adequately allege facts showing unlawful or unfair business practices by Rhyan, individually or as trustee. The allegations pertaining to Rhyan’s alleged unfair business practices are vague and conclusory. (See FAC ¶¶ 83, 85.)

The demurrer to the eighth cause of action is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

In light of this ruling the court vacates the 7/6/26 OSC.

Rhyan shall give notice.

206 Negron vs. The Demurrer filed on 1/22/26 by Defendant Amy Negron Burchett Negron (Defendant), as to the Complaint filed on 10/3/25 by Plaintiff John Negron (Plaintiff) is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.

This action appears to assert claims which Plaintiff needed to assert in a compulsory cross-complaint, under Code of Civil Procedure section 426.30. The Complaint asserts that Defendant was abusive to Plaintiff “throughout the marriage,” but as the Complaint asserts at ¶ 5 that they separated on 7/5/23, it appears that those claims could have been timely asserted in a cross-complaint. The Complaint also includes a slander claim which appears to be based primarily on allegations made by Defendant in her underlying suit - but the Complaint also asserts at ¶ 12 that Defendant “has told multiple individuals that JOHN gave her a sexually transmitted disease.” As the Opposition asserts that the latter is intended to refer to statements made after a cross-complaint could have been timely filed, the Demurrer on this basis is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED under Ev. Code §452(d) as to the existence of and legal effects of the records, but not as to the truth of any disputed facts asserted therein. (