Case Number: BC684984 Hearing Date: March 23, 2018 Dept: 53

ENCINO CORPORATE PLAZA, L.P. vs. LAW OFFICES OF VAHDAT & ASSOCIATE, APC , et al.; BC684984, March 23, 2018

[Tentative] Order RE: DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant Law Offices of Vahdat & Associate, APC’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Encino Corporate Plaza, L.P. (“Plaintiff”) initiated the instant action on November 29, 2017 against Defendant Law Offices of Vahdat & Associate, APC (“Defendant”). The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on December 14, 2017 (the “FAC”). The FAC alleges causes of action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Defendant now demurs to the unjust enrichment cause of action on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiff opposes.

DISCUSSION

“Unjust enrichment is not a cause of action…or even a remedy, but rather a general principle, underlying various legal doctrines and remedies.” (Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Plaza Del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 221, 231 [internal citations and quotations omitted].) A cause of action for unjust enrichment, therefore, is properly construed as a quasi-contract claim seeking restitution. (Ibid.) Although “an action based on an implied-in-fact or quasi-contract cannot lie where there exists between the parties a valid express contract covering the same subject matter,” “restitution may be awarded…when the parties had an express contract, but it was procured by fraud or is unenforceable or ineffective for some reason.” (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff has alleged an unjust enrichment cause of action while also alleging the existence of an express contract covering the same subject matter. For that reason, Defendant’s demurrer is properly sustained. Plaintiff submits an offer of proof that he can amend the FAC to include allegations that the contract alleged in the FAC is void, unenforceable, or ineffective, presumably on a theory of undue influence of one of the parties. Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.) The Court finds that there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment, and so the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff is to file an amended complaint, if any, within 10 days of this Order.

Defendant is to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: March 23, 2018

_____________________________

Howard L. Halm

Judge of the Superior Court