Bleau Law Group, Inc. and Thomas P. Bleau v. Red Energy, Inc., et al.

sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) Here, Defendant requests $1,893 in sanctions. Counsel bills at $235 per hour and claims 3.8 hours preparing the motion, one anticipated hour reviewing an opposition and preparing a reply, three anticipated hours appearing at the hearing, and a $60 filing fee. (Real Decl., P. 10.) The Court finds the $235 hourly rate reasonable. The 3.8 hours claimed for preparing this motion are excessive given the nature of the motion and the issues presented.

The Court allows one hour for preparation. No timely opposition was filed. The Court therefore excludes the anticipated hour for reviewing an opposition and preparing a reply. The Court also finds the three anticipated hours for the hearing excessive and allows one hour. As no opposition was filed, Plaintiff has made no showing of substantial justification or other circumstances making the imposition of sanctions unjust, and none otherwise appears from the record. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff in the reduced amount of $530, consisting of two hours at $235 per hour plus the $60 filing fee.

CONCLUSION The motion is granted in part. Plaintiff shall appear for deposition within 30 days after service of notice of this ruling. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the date. If they cannot agree, Defendant shall select a date within that period and serve an amended deposition notice stating the date, time, and manner of appearance. At the deposition, Plaintiff shall produce responsive documents and make responsive tangible items available for inspection under Request Nos. 1, 3 through 9, 11, 13, and 20 through 23 of the April 2, 2026 notice.

As to Request No. 2, production is limited to medical and hospital bills for treatment of injuries Plaintiff attributes to the subject incident. As to Request No. 12, production is limited to statements concerning the incident or the injuries and damages claimed in this action. Nothing in this order precludes a timely assertion of privilege or work-product protection at the deposition. The motion is denied without prejudice as to Request Nos. 10 and 14 through 19. Plaintiff shall pay Defendant $530 in monetary sanctions within 30 days after service of notice of this ruling.

Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Case Number: 25CHCV04023 DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Demurrer filed on February 19, 2026. MOVING PARTY: Red Energy, Inc., Royal Express Delivery, Inc., Sunoil Retail Group, Inc., Smart Place, Inc., Sergey Vershinin, and Tatiana Vershinina (collectively, Defendants) RESPONDING PARTY: Bleau Law Group, Inc. and Thomas P. Bleau (collectively, Plaintiffs) NOTICE: OK. RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendants seek an order sustaining their

demurrer to the Complaint. RULING: Sustained with 20 days' leave to amend. BACKGROUND On November 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint against Defendants, identifying claims for breach of contract, open book account, and reasonable value of service. (Compl., p. 1.) On January 14, 2026, Defendants filed a declaration in support of an automatic extension to respond to the Complaint. (Alexakis Decl., p. 1.) On February 19, 2026, Defendants filed the Demurrer and Request for Judicial Notice. (Demurrer, pp. 1-6.)

LEGAL STANDARD "[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint." (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the Court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v.

Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) DISCUSSION Request for Judicial Notice Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice of the Complaint and proofs of service is denied as unnecessary. The Court may review its own records. (RJN, Exs. 1-2.) Breach of Contract Breach of contract requires a contract, the plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, the defendant's breach, and resulting damages. (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.) A written contract may be pleaded verbatim or by attaching and incorporating a copy. (Harris v.

Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 307.) Its legal effect may also be pleaded. (Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198-199.) Here, paragraph 9 alleges a signed promissory note but leaves the date, principal, and interest rate as "[Date]," "[Amount Owed]," and "[Interest Rate]." The referenced Exhibit A is not attached. Paragraphs 10 and 11 allege nonpayment of "the amount due" and damages of "[Total Amount Owed, including any accrued interest]." (Compl., P.P. 9-11.)

Without the note or allegations stating its operative payment terms or legal effect, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded the contractual obligation allegedly breached. The demurrer as to the first cause of action is sustained. Open Book Account and Reasonable Value of Service Plaintiff's "2) Open Book Account" and "3) Reasonable Value of Service" claims appear only in the caption. The body proceeds from the contract allegations directly to the prayer, without alleging a book account or services rendered at Defendants' request or for their benefit. (Compl., pp. 1-3.)

The purported second and third causes of action therefore fail to state

sufficient facts. The demurrer as to the second and third causes of action are sustained. Remaining Grounds and Leave to Amend A challenge to personal jurisdiction based on defective service is raised by a motion to quash, not a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) The Court does not reach Defendants' remaining grounds because they would not affect the disposition. Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility that amendment will cure the pleading's defects. (Goodman v.

Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) Here, Plaintiffs may cure the identified omissions by alleging the note's operative terms and facts supporting the purported additional claims. The Court therefore grants leave to amend. CONCLUSION Defendants' demurrer to the first cause of action and the purported second and third causes of action is sustained under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e), with 20 days from service of notice of this ruling to file and serve a First Amended Complaint. | Home -->)" -->