2018-00225459-CU-BC

Stephanie Mammen vs. Cory Maier

Nature of Proceeding: Hearing on Demurrer to the 2nd Amended Complaint

Filed By: Harrison, Kim A.

Defendant’s unopposed demurrer to self-represented Plaintiff Stephanie Mammen’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) is ruled upon as follows.

This action arises out of a nonmarital cohabitation relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action for breach of contract based on allegations that the parties had an implied agreement for a joint venture pursuant to which Defendant asked Plaintiff if Plaintiff wanted to purchase and share a home with Defendant. Plaintiff alleged that they agreed to share expenses and invest in a home. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant obtained financing and promised to add Plaintiff to title. (SAC ¶¶ 2-4.) Plaintiff alleged that they borrowed the $5000 for the home they purchased in April 2009 from Defendant’s mother. Plaintiff alleges that she invested funds on upgrades and improvements to the property but that Defendant never added Plaintiff’s name to title. (Id. ¶¶ 7-9.) In the previous versions of the complaint, Plaintiff’s causes of action were premised on allegations that the parties had a non-marital, romantic, cohabitation agreement though the other allegations were similar. The Court has twice previously sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the complaint.

Defendant’s demurrer is sustained without leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The essential elements to be pleaded in an action for breach of contract are (1) the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting harm to the plaintiff (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 1371, 1388). According to Defendant, the allegations are insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a contract (e.g., offer, acceptance, consideration). The Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the demurrer as a concession on the merits. The Court has compared the allegations of the SAC to the FAC and the complaint which were previously found deficient. The allegations in the SAC do not differ in any meaningful way from the previously deficient pleadings. Again, as with the previous pleading, there are no allegations that Plaintiff paid anything towards the purchase price the property taxes, or homeowners insurance, though Plaintiff alleges again that she made some financial contributions to home improvements. The Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the demurrer as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court(1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes” that ground].)

The Court again notes that although Plaintiff represents herself in this actionin propria persona, self-represented litigants are not entitled to special treatment. (Nelson v.

Gaunt(1981) 125 Cal. App.3d 623, 638-639.) While Plaintiff is self-represented and no doubt has little or no legal training, self-represented litigants are required to follow the same procedural rules that govern civil litigation. (McComber v. Wells(1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523.) A party representing himself or herself is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Nwosu v. Uba(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210).

As the Court has given Plaintiff two previous opportunities to amend the complaint in order to state a valid cause of action and she has failed to do so, the Court declines to grant any further leave to amend. The demurrer is therefore sustained without leave to amend.