Case Number: 13K08966 Hearing Date: June 04, 2014 Dept: 77

Defendant Suzi Sayeri-Tabaian’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

As to the 1st cause of action for breach of contract, the 2nd cause of action for quantum meruit, the 4th c/a for fraudulent suppression of material fact, the 5th c/a for fraud, and the 6th c/a for conspiracy to commit fraud. the Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Insufficient facts are stated to support any of the causes of action stated in the First Amended Complaint. CCP § 430.10(e).

Defendant Suzi Sayeri-Tabaian’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 3rd c/a for intentional interference with economic relationship, and 7th c/a for negligent interference with contract and economic relationship. Insufficient facts are stated to support any of the causes of action stated in the First Amended Complaint. CCP § 430.10(e).

The Court also grants leave for Plaintiff to add Re/Max Olson and Associates as a party defendant and only add new causes of action as to the new defendant. Leave to add new causes of action against Defendant Suzi Sayeri-Tabaian is DENIED.

As to the 1st cause of action for breach of contract, the demurrer is sustained on the grounds that insufficient facts are alleged to constitute a cause of action against defendant. CCP § 430.10(e) and CC § 1624. Reading the First Amended Complaint, all essential terms have not been pled. The first amended complaint attachment of the residential purchase agreement/joint escrow instructions is an agreement between Defendant and a third party – Seller Amtrust REO I LLC. It is not the “listing agreement” between Plaintiffs and Defendant. The agreement does not provide any provision obligating Defendant to pay any specific commission to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ citation to terms in the contract showing affirmation/confirmation of agency relationships does not support their argument that Defendant was obligated to pay any commission herein. Accordingly, the demurrer to this cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.

As to the 2nd cause of action for quantum meruit, the demurrer is sustained on the grounds that insufficient facts are alleged to constitute a cause of action against defendant. CCP § 430.10(e). Here, the moving party has made a compelling argument that the demurrer to this cause of action should be sustained. Plaintiff should not be able to make an end run around the statute of frauds. CC § 1624. Accordingly, the demurrer to this cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.

As to the 3rd cause of action for intentional interference with economic relationship and 7th cause of action for negligent interference with contract and economic relationship the demurrer is sustained on the grounds that insufficient facts are alleged to constitute a cause of action against defendant. CCP § 430.10(e). Here, the moving party has made a compelling argument that the demurrer to these causes of action should be sustained. As of yet, it is noted that there is only one defendant, although Plaintiff has requested to add a third party – Seller’s agent/broker, Re/Max Olson and Associates. Second, the causes of action requires that there be a valid contract. However, without the inclusion of Re/Max Olson and Associates as a party and any allegations of a contract between Plaintiffs and Re/Max Olson and Associates, these two claims are still deficient. No breach of contract claim has been adequately alleged. Accordingly, the demurrer to these causes of action is sustained with leave to amend.

As to the 4th cause of action for fraudulent suppression of material fact, 5th cause of action for fraud, 6th cause of action to commit fraud the demurrer is sustained on the grounds that insufficient facts are alleged to constitute a cause of action against defendant. CCP § 430.10(e). Here, the moving party again has made a compelling argument that the demurrer to these causes of action should be sustained. First, no breach of contract claim has been adequately alleged. Second, these causes of action are not pled with the required specificity. Finally, in terms of conspiracy to commit fraud, as no claim for fraud has been alleged, this cause of action too cannot survive as the Complaint currently stands. Accordingly, the demurrer to these causes of action is sustained with leave to amend.

In this case leave to amend is being granted. Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348. Because Plaintiff is seeking to add Re/Max Olson and Associates as a party defendant and provides facts to show that a contract exists regarding the payment of commissions from this transaction, and if Plaintiff can provide a listing agreement or other written documents showing an agreement regarding payment of commissions, Plaintiff can possibly cure the defects in the Complaint.

Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended Complaint within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.