LINE: 2 17-CIV-05483 RAEL & LETSON VS. RALPH HASKEW, CPA, ET AL.

RALPH HASKEW JAMES RHEIN
FARLEY J. NEUMAN STEPHEN A. DENNIS

DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT RALPH HASKEW’S CROSS-COMPLAINT BY JAMES RHEIN, HEIDI HAGLER, MIKE KAPLAN AND TITO RAEL TENTATIVE RULING:

A. Demurrer to “the Cross-complaint” Is Overruled.

“Each ground of demurrer must be in a separate paragraph and must state whether it applies to the entire complaint, cross-complaint, or answer, or to specified causes of action or defenses.” (CRC Rule 3.1320(a).) Cross-defendant’s demurrer is embedded within the Notice. It states none of the grounds set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10. Since the Notice does not identify any specific cause of action, the Court deems the demurrer to be on the ground that the entire crosscomplaint fails to state a cause of action.

The supporting points and authorities, however, argue that only the first cause of action for indemnity lacks merit. Cross-defendant offers no argument as to the second cause of action for declaratory relief. Since no argument is offered against the second cause of action, the demurrer to “the crosscomplaint” must be denied. (Warren v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 36 (if pleading contains several causes of action, demurrer to entire complaint overruled if any cause of action is properly stated).)

B. The Cross-complaint Sufficiently Pleads Equitable Indemnity.

Even if the Demurrer were to the first cause of action, the demurrer would be overruled.

The Jaffe case does not apply. A demurrer must be based on the face of the pleadings or judicially noticeable matter. The two grounds forming the basis of the Jaffe decision are not evident from the face of the Cross-complaint. Nothing in the Cross-complaint compels the conclusion that the relationship between board members of a homeowners association is identical to the relationship between R&L and the Cross-defendant board members. Further, the Crosscomplaint contains no allegations that demonstrate the “special relationship” that the Court found in Jaffe.

Further, the same court that decided Jaffe later limited that case to its specific facts, refusing to expand it beyond the context of a homeowners association. (See Platt v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate Servs. (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 1439, 1447–49.) The First District also limited Jaffe to the situation in which the “special relationship” identified by Jaffe exists. (Paragon Real Estate Grp. of San Francisco, Inc. v. Hansen (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 177, 187.)

C. Ruling

The demurrer of Cross-defendants James Rhein, Heidi Hagler, Mike Kaplan, and Tito Rael to the entire cross-complaint and the first cause of action is overruled. Cross-defendants shall file and serve their respective Answer or Answers no later than July 10, 2019, or two weeks after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever date is later. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Cross-complainant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

June 18, 2019 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 5 Judge: HONORABLE SUSAN GREENBERG, Department 3 ________________________________________________________________________ 9:00 LINE: 3 17-CIV-05483 RAEL & LETSON VS. RALPH HASKEW, CPA, ET AL.

RONALD CASSANO, CPA JAMES RHEIN
TERENCE KENNEY STEPHEN A. DENNIS

DEMURRER TO DEFENDANT RONALD CASSANO’S CROSS-COMPLAINT BY JAMES RHEIN, HEIDI HAGLER, MIKE KAPLAN AND TITO RAEL TENTATIVE RULING:

A. Demurrer to “the Cross-complaint” Is Overruled.

“Each ground of demurrer must be in a separate paragraph and must state whether it applies to the entire complaint, cross-complaint, or answer, or to specified causes of action or defenses.” (CRC Rule 3.1320(a).) Cross-defendant’s demurrer is embedded within the Notice. It states none of the grounds set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10. Since the Notice does not identify any specific cause of action, the Court deems the demurrer to be on the ground that the entire crosscomplaint fails to state a cause of action.

The supporting points and authorities, however, argue that only the first cause of action for indemnity lacks merit. Cross-defendant offers no argument as to the second cause of action for declaratory relief. Since no argument is offered against the second cause of action, the demurrer to “the crosscomplaint” must be denied. (Warren v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 36 (if pleading contains several causes of action, demurrer to entire complaint overruled if any cause of action is properly stated).)

B. The Cross-complaint Sufficiently Pleads Equitable Indemnity.

Even if the Demurrer were to the first cause of action, the demurrer would be overruled.

The Jaffe case does not apply. A demurrer must be based on the face of the pleadings or judicially noticeable matter. The two grounds forming the basis of the Jaffe decision are not evident from the face of the Cross-complaint. Nothing in the Cross-complaint compels the conclusion that the relationship between board members of a homeowners association is identical to the relationship between R&L and the Cross-defendant board members. Further, the Crosscomplaint contains no allegations that demonstrate the “special relationship” that the Court found in Jaffe.

Further, the same court that decided Jaffe later limited that case to its specific facts, refusing to expand it beyond the context of a homeowners association. (See Platt v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate Servs. (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 1439, 1447–49.) The First District also limited Jaffe to the situation in which the “special relationship” identified by Jaffe exists. (Paragon Real Estate Grp. of San Francisco, Inc. v. Hansen (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 177, 187.)

C. Ruling

The demurrer of Cross-defendants James Rhein, Heidi Hagler, Mike Kaplan, and Tito Rael to the entire cross-complaint and the first cause of action is overruled. Cross-defendants shall file and serve their respective Answer or Answers no later than July 10, 2019, or two weeks after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever date is later. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Cross-complainant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.