Case Name: Buckel, et al. v. Jokipii, et al.
Case No.: 2015-1-CV-288148

According to the allegations of the first amended complaint (“FAC”), plaintiffs Linda Buckel (“Buckel”) and Chalet LLC (“Chalet”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and defendant Eron Jokipii (“Jokipii”) entered into an oral agreement relating to real property at 140 Alley Way in Mountain View. On April 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the FAC against defendants Jokipii, Red Dot Investments (“Red Dot”), and Ravi Dronamraju (“Dronamraju”) (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for:

1) Specific performance (against Jokipii and Red Dot);
2) Breach of contract (against Jokipii and Red Dot);
3) Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (against Jokipii);
4) Declaratory relief (against Jokipii and Red Dot);
5) Interference with contract (against Dronamraju and Red Dot);
6) Conspiracy to commit fraud and wrongful eviction (against Defendants);
7) Wrongful eviction (against Dronamraju and Red Dot);
8) Conversion and interference with chattels (against Dronamraju and Red Dot); and,
9) Common count (against Jokipii).

Defendants demur to each cause of action on the ground that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. On February 24, 2017, counsel for Plaintiffs, Lawrence M. Scancarelli, filed a “declaration in response to demurrer to first amended complaint,” asserting that Defendants did not comply with the meet and confer requirements before filing the demurrer, that he disagreed with Defendants’ counsel on most of the issues of the intended demurrer as stated in his December 2, 2016 letter but agreed to amend his complaint to address a few of the issues, and requests that the Court grant leave to amend the FAC if it intends to sustain the demurrer.

The Court finds that Defendants’ meet and confer efforts prior to the filing of the demurrer were adequate. Further, Scancarelli’s declaration is not an opposition, and as it does not address the substance of the demurrer, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the FAC is capable of amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (stating that “Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading”), quoting Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627, 636; see also Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723, 742 (stating that “the burden is on the plaintiff… to demonstrate the manner in which the complaint might be amended”).)

Plaintiffs’ counsel is admonished that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any leave to amend a FAC as a matter of course (see Code Civ. Proc. § 472), and a failure to file an opposition to a demurrer or a failure to demonstrate how their complaint might be amended will result in the sustaining of the demurrer without leave to amend. However, as this is Defendants’ first demurrer, the demurrer to the FAC is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

The Court will prepare the order.