DEMURRER to COMPLAINT
Matter on calendar for Monday, August 4, 2025, Line 8, DEFENDANT DAVID PARK DEMURRER to COMPLAINT.
Defendant David Park's demurrer to the first cause of action for breach of contract is overruled. Park contends the complaint is insufficiently detailed as to the material terms of the contract. The elements of a breach of contract action are "(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff." (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1388.) A plaintiff alleging a breach of a written contract "may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language." (Construction Protective Services, Inc. v.
TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198-199.) The allegations here state the date of the contracts, the relevant terms (plaintiff Ian Shin lent money to Park, who was supposed to repay it), that plaintiff performed, and the nature of the breach (Park made some payments but stopped making payments in 2024). These allegations are similar in detail to that found sufficient by the appellate court in Maxwell v. Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 98.
Park also contends that Shin's breach of contract action is time barred. A claim accrues as of the date of the breach. Shin alleges that Park breached in 2024, which makes this action timely. The date of contract formation is not the same as the accrual date.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA). | |