Case Name: Mahnaz Azimi v. Mohammad Jazani and Cal. Auto Enterprises
Case No.: 19CV350113

This is an action for (1) breach of (oral) contract, (2) fraud and (3) conversion brought by Plaintiff Mahnaz Azimi (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants Mohammad Jazani and California Auto Enterprises (“Defendants”). The original and still operative Complaint was filed on June 18, 2019. Currently before the Court is Defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint.

The Court in ruling on a demurrer treats it “as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Piccinini v. Cal. Emergency Management Agency (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 685, 688, citing Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “A demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleading. It admits the truth of all material factual allegations in the complaint; the question of plaintiff’s ability to prove these allegations, or the possible difficulty in making such proof does not concern the reviewing court.” (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213-214.)

As an initial matter the Court notes that Defendants’ demurer is made on the basis that “[t]he complaint [and] each and every cause of action therein does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, is uncertain, confusing, ambiguous and unintelligible and it cannot be ascertained from the Complaint what promises defendant/s made to plaintiff, what are the basis for damages and that plaintiff failed to file the complaint in a timely manner as it is barred based on the Statute of Limitations.” (Notice of Demurrer at p. 2:3-8, brackets added.) The demurrer is therefore treated as a demurrer to the entire complaint. (See Cal. Rule of Court 3.1320(a) [“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.”]) A demurrer to an entire complaint may be overruled if any cause of action therein is properly stated. (See Warren v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 36.)

Defendants’ demurrer to the entire complaint on uncertainty grounds is OVERRULED. “[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135. See also Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616 [“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.”])

While the complaint is not a model of clarity it is readily apparent from Defendants’ arguments that they understand what causes of action are alleged against them and can reasonably respond. There is no true uncertainty. Furthermore the inclusion of California Auto Enterprises as a defendant in all causes of action is adequately explained in the Complaint at ¶6. The Complaint’s factual allegations are accepted as true on demurrer.

Defendants’ demurrer to the entire complaint on the ground that it fails to state sufficient facts is also OVERRULED. Contrary to Defendant’s argument there is no requirement that a breach of contract claim or a conversion claim must be pled with specificity and both claims are adequately alleged.

Even if Defendants’ specific arguments against individual claims had been properly set forth in the Notice of Demurrer, the demurrer would still be overruled.

Defendants have not established that the first cause of action for breach of oral contract is time-barred. “A general demurrer based on the statute of limitations is only permissible where the dates alleged in the complaint show that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. The running of the statute must appear ‘clearly and affirmatively’ from the dates alleged. It is not sufficient that the complaint might be barred. If the dates establishing the running of the statute of limitations do not clearly appear in the complaint, there is no ground for general demurrer.” (Roman v. County of Los Angeles (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 316, 324-325, internal citations omitted.) While the Complaint at ¶8 alleges that the oral contract was entered into on May 8, 2017 there are no allegations as to when it was breached or when Plaintiff learned of the breach.

Defendants also have not established that the second cause of action for fraud fails to state sufficient facts. While fraud must be alleged with specificity, it is well established that less specificity is required where “defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy.” (Committee on Children’s Television, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 216.)

Defendants are directed to file an Answer to the Complaint within 10 days. (See Cal. Rule of Court 3.1320(j)(2).)