Demurrer by Defendant Martin Auto Color, Inc. to the Complaint of Plaintiff J & J Lundstrom Brothers dba East Bay Color Service

Request for Judicial Notice

In support of the demurrer, Defendant requests judicial notice of a letter dated July 16, 2013. (See Exhibit 1.) “Judicial notice of matters upon demurrer will be dispositive only in those instances where there is not or cannot be a factual dispute concerning that which is sought to be judicially noticed.” (Williams v. Southern California Gas Co. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 591, 600.) Since the letter raises potential factual conflicts, taking judicial notice would be inappropriate on demurrer.

Therefore, Defendant’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.

Demurrer to the Complaint

Defendant’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action [interference with contractual relations and inducement to breach contract] on the ground of uncertainty is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (f).) In general, “a demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Here, the court finds nothing vague or ambiguous about Plaintiff’s interference claim to support a demurrer for uncertainty.

Defendant’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action [interference with contractual relations and inducement to breach contract] on the ground that it fails to state a claim is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (e).) As an initial matter, the court notes that it is improper for Defendant to challenge Plaintiff’s request for exemplary damages on demurrer. (See Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 365, 385 [the appropriate procedural device for challenging a portion of a cause of action seeking an improper remedy is a motion to strike].) Also, as stated above, the court has denied Defendant’s request for judicial notice and thus cannot address the demurrer with respect to the July 16, 2013 letter.

“The elements which a plaintiff must plead to state the cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations are (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant’s knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.” (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 55.)

With respect to the fourth cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was aware of the contract between Plaintiff and defendants Wong & Iraheta (“Subject Contract”). (See Attachment IT-1.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant provided automotive refinishing materials to Wong & Iraheta in violation of the Subject Contract. (Ibid.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s interference and inducement to breach contract proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer damages in the amount of $205,546. (Ibid.) Such allegations are sufficient to state a claim for interference and must be accepted as true on demurrer. (See Olson v. Toy (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 818, 823 [for purposes of demurrer, we accept these allegations as true].)

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Exemplary Damages

Request for Judicial Notice

For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.

Motion to Strike Exemplary Damages

Defendant’s motion to strike the Exemplary Damages Attachment with respect to the fourth cause of action is GRANTED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff fails to allege facts demonstrating malice, oppression, or fraud to support an award of exemplary or punitive damages with respect to the interference claim. (See Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a); see also McDonald v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 297, 304 [a motion to strike should be granted with leave to amend if plaintiff has not had a fair opportunity to correct the defect].)