Corbin v. Brophy

Although courts should take a liberal view of inartfully drawn complaints, (see Code Civ. Proc., § 452), it remains essential that a complaint set forth the actionable facts relied upon with sufficient precision to inform the defendant of what plaintiff is

complaining, and what remedies are being sought. (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 413). Bare conclusions of law devoid of any facts are insufficient to withstand demurrer. (Schmid v. City and County of San Francisco (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 470, 481; see Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a).)

Cause of Action 1 (Breach of Contract)

The elements of a breach of contract cause of action are “(1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) damages to the plaintiff as a result of the breach.” (CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239.)

Cross-Defendant argues that Cross-Complainant fails to sufficiently allege the terms of the contract. The TAXC sets forth the provisions Cross-Defendant is alleged to have breached verbatim on the face of the TAXC. This is sufficient for purposes of a demurrer.

Cross-Complainant sufficiently pleads a breach of the contract by alleging Cross-Defendant’s terminated the contract and failed to pay the fees due under Article 25.4.

Accordingly, the demurrer to this cause of action is OVERRULED.

Cause of Action 8 (Quantum Meruit)

The elements of a cause of action for quantum meruit are: (1) the plaintiff acted pursuant to an express or implied request for services by the defendant, and (2) the services rendered benefited the defendant. (Day v. Alta Bates Medical Center (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 243, 248.)

Cross-Complainant sufficiently alleges a cause of action for quantum meruit in the alternative to the breach of contract claim. The TAXC alleges that Cross-Complainant undertook various acts for the benefit of Cross-Defendant and was not paid for those acts.

Accordingly, the demurrer to this cause of action is OVERRULED.

Cause of Action 2 (Concealment)

The second cause of action appears to allege concealment of material information as a ground for breach of contract. It is entirely subsumed by Cross-Complainant’s first cause of action which also alleges a breach of contract by virtue of a failure to disclose material information.

Accordingly, the demurrer to this cause of action is SUSTAINED.

Cause of Action 3 (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)

Cross-Defendant argues this cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule because it seeks to impose tort remedies for an ordinary claim of breach of contract. For the economic loss rule to not apply to this claim, Cross-Complainant must show that Cross-Defendant’s conduct “also violates a duty independent of the contract arising from principles of tort law.” (Robinson Helicopter Co, Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.5th 979, 989.) Cross-Complainant fails to show any duty independent of the contract that Cross-Defendant violated. This cause of action is precluded under the economic loss rule.

Accordingly, the demurrer to this cause of action is SUSTAINED.

Cause of Actions 4, 5, 6 (Fraud)

As with Cross-Complainant’s prior pleading, none of the fraud causes of action are alleged with particularity. The Cross- Complaint makes vague assertions about general issues that Cross-Defendant deceived him (e.g. the state of the architectural plans, the availability of financing for the cost of the work, submitting Cross-Complainant’s unfinished plans to the city). Required specificity is still lacking. (See Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184. (“’In California, fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice. [Citations.] “Thus ‘the policy of liberal construction of the pleadings ... will not ordinarily be invoked to sustain a pleading defective in any material respect.”’ [Citation.]

This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.’”’ [Citation.]” Emphasis in original.)

Accordingly, the demurrer to this cause of action is SUSTAINED.

Cause of Action 7 (Conversion)

A cause of action for conversion requires allegations of “(1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property right; and (3) damages.” (IIG Wireless, Inc. v. Yi (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 630, 650.)

Cross-Complainant’s cause of action for conversion is based upon allegations that Cross-Defendant took the incomplete

architectural plans Cross-Complainant had prepared and submitted them to the City for permit approval.

This cause of action fails. The allegations of the TAXC make it clear that Cross-Defendant “shall be permitted to retain copies including reproducible copies of the design documents. The Owner may submit or distribute these documents for the purposes of constructing this specific project only.” (TAXC ¶ 3.) Accordingly, there is no possibility that Cross-Complainant can establish a wrongful act or disposition of the property based on the allegations in the TAXC.

Accordingly, the demurrer to this cause of action is SUSTAINED.

Leave to Amend

In granting Cross-Complainant leave to file a Third Amended Cross-Complaint, the Court made clear it was Cross- Complainant’s last opportunity to assert viable causes of action. Cross-Complainant has failed as it relates to several causes of action. And Cross-Complainant has shown no basis why further amendment should be allowed.

Accordingly, leave to amend is DENIED.

Motion to Strike

Cross-Defendant Sasinee Corbin’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED in part.

Cross-Complainant’s prayer for punitive damages is STRICKEN. The TAXC does not allege sufficient facts to justify an award of punitive damages under Civ. Code §3294.

“The mere carelessness or ignorance of the defendant does not justify the imposition of punitive damages.... Punitive damages are proper only when the tortious conduct rises to levels of extreme indifference to the plaintiff's rights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate.” (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Insurance Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287.) Cross-Complainant fails to meet this standard.

Cross-Defendant also moves to strike the Second, Third, Seventh, and Eighth causes of action for being beyond the scope of leave to amend granted in the 1/5/26 minute order. The motion is MOOT as to the Second, Third and Seventh Causes of action, in light of the ruling on the demurrer. The Eighth cause of action is within the scope of leave to amend granted on 1/5/26.

Cross-Defendant shall provide notice of this ruling.