Case Number: 19BBCV00567 Hearing Date: December 13, 2019 Dept: A

Mitoyan v State Farm

Demurrer; Motion to Strike

Calendar:

06

Case No.:

19BBCV00567

Hearing Date:

December 13, 2019

Action Filed:

July 01, 2019

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Defendant State Farm Automobile Insurance Company

RP:

Plaintiff Mariam Mitoyan

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arises from an uninsured motorist claim where Plaintiff Mariam Mitoyan (“Plaintiff”) alleges she was injured in a hit-and-run incident, and that her insurer, Defendant State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (“Defendant”) failed to pay her the benefits she is entitled to under their contract.

Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint on July 01, 2019, and a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 03, 2019, alleging two causes of action for (1) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and (2) Breach of Contract.

PRESENTATION:

Defendant demurred and moved to strike the FAC on November 13, 2019. Plaintiff opposed only the demurrer on December 02, 2019, and Defendant submitted a reply brief on December 06, 2019.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendant demurs to the First Cause of Action only.

Defendant moves to strike punitive damages allegations.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Demurrer – The grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters. Code Civ. Proc. §430.30,(a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318. Concerning the legal sufficiency of a pleading, the sole issue on demurrer is whether the facts pleaded, if true, state a valid cause of action – i.e., if the complaint pleads facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 326, 339.

A general demurrer admits the truth of all factual, material allegations properly pled in the challenged pleading, regardless of possible difficulties of proof. Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318. Thus, no matter how unlikely or improbable, plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 593, 604. Nevertheless, this rule does not apply to allegations expressing mere conclusions of law, or allegations contradicted by the exhibits to the complaint or by matters of which judicial notice may be taken. Vance v. Villa Park Mobilehome Estates (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 698, 709. A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §430.10(e) and (f), the party against whom a complaint has been filed may object by demurrer to the pleading on the grounds that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or that the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous and/or unintelligible. It is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer if there is a reasonable probability that the defect can be cured by amendment. Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1074, 1082, as modified (Dec. 23, 2003).

Meet and Confer – Prior to filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to satisfy their meet and confer obligations pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §430.41, and demonstrate that they so satisfied their meet and confer obligation by submitting a declaration pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §430.41(a)(2) & (3).

On review of the Declaration of Christy Gargalis, the Court finds that Defendant satisfied its meet and confer obligation under the code.

—

First Cause of Action (Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) – The elements for a cause of action in breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing require (1) the existence of a contractual relationship; (2) an implied duty; (3) breach; and (4) causation of damages. Smith v. San Francisco (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 38, 49. See also Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1153 (“In essence, the covenant is implied as a supplement to the express contractual covenants.”). The duty is most commonly found where a contract “confers on one party a discretionary power affecting the rights of the other.” 300 DeHaro St. Investors v. Dept. of Hous. & Community Dev. (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 1240, 1253. The scope of conduct that is prohibited by the covenant depends on the purposes and express terms of the contract. Carma Developers, Inc. v. Marathon Development California, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 342, 373. “[T]ort recovery for breach of the covenant is available only in limited circumstances, generally involving a special relationship between the contracting parties, such as a relationship between an insured and its insurer.” Bionghi v. Metro. Water Dist. (1990) 70 Cal. App. 4th 1358, 1370.

On review of the moving papers, Plaintiff provides no legal authority to support their arguments in opposition to Defendant’s demurrer. Absent a good faith basis for the modification or extension of an existing law, litigants are generally prohibited from asserting a position in litigation without authority. See, e.g., In re Estate of Randall (1924) 194 Cal. 725, 728-29 (“Contentions supported neither by argument nor by citation of authority are deemed to be without foundation, and to have been abandoned.”)(internal quotations omitted); California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.1.

Additionally, the citation to general propositions of law, general statutes and rules, or the assertion that a legal principle applies, without analysis or authority, provides no basis for the court to analyze or adopt the request of the party, and requires no substantive analysis by the court. See Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 545, 571-72 (“When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’”); Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 820, 850 (“In a page and a half, and with citation to but one case for the general proposition the conduct was despicable, [Cross-Appellant appeals] from the granting of the directed verdict motion. This cursory treatment requires no discussion by us.”); Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 635, 647 (“Where a point is merely asserted by appellant’s counsel without any argument of or authority for the proposition, it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.”). Here, to the extent that Plaintiff refers to the Court to any authority whatsoever, it is either the legal standards for demurrer (Opposition, 2:17-3:18), or an unanalyzed rejection of two of the cases cited by Defendant (Opposition, 4:3-7).

As such, the Court will sustain the demurrer, but with leave to amend as this is the first demurrer to the allegations contained herein and upon the request of Plaintiff (Opposition, 5:1-2).

—

Motion to Strike – While the instant motion is similarly unopposed, the grant of leave to amend renders the instant motion moot.

—

RULING: Sustain demurrer with 30 days leave to amend.

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendant State Farm Automobile Insurance Company’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike came on regularly for hearing on December 13, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND; AND

THE MOTION TO STRIEK IS MOOT.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE