Case Number: VC064030    Hearing Date: July 29, 2014    Dept: SEC

LEE v. YUN
CASE NO.: VC064030
HEARING: 07/29/14

#9
TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant HANNAH YUN’s demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND with respect to plaintiff KSYH MARKETING, INC.; as to plaintiff KUMSUNG LEE, it is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 1st through 3rd causes of action, and OVERRULED as to the 4th cause of action. C.C.P. § 430.10(b), (f).

This action involves a commercial lease dispute. With respect to plaintiff KSYH, defendant argues that the entity was not party to the agreement. Although defendant references the lease as Exhibit 1 to the complaint, the writing is not attached to the pleading filed with the Court. Therefore, the Court cannot determine whether the corporate entity is a proper party. In amending the pleading, plaintiff should attach the subject lease agreement and plead additional facts (if necessary) supporting the claim that KSYH is a real party in interest, and a proper plaintiff with respect to all causes of action asserted on its behalf.

As alleged, plaintiff KUMSUNG LEE entered into a five-year lease, commencing in August 2013, for the operation of a restaurant in Whittier. Comp., ¶¶6, 7. In December 2013, plaintiff received an offer from a third party (Sangyeup Kwon) to purchase the restaurant. ¶8. The lease allegedly contains an assignment clause, and plaintiff notified defendant Yun of his intent to exercise the assignment right. ¶¶9, 12.

Thereafter, defendant Yun approached buyer Kwon and told him not to go through with the purchase because she was going to evict plaintiff and that she would execute a new lease with Kwon with more favorable terms, and let him keep the restaurant equipment. ¶¶15-17. Kwon backed out of the sale and plaintiff suffered damages as a result. ¶18.

Thereafter, in March 2014, defendant turned the water and electricity off and engaged in other disruptive behavior, forcing plaintiff to shut down the restaurant. Because of the lost sale, plaintiff was unable to pay rent and in April 2014, defendant filed an unlawful detainer. ¶¶21, 22.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for intentional interference with contractual relations and prospective economic relations, breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant challenges each of the claims.

1st—intentional interference with contractual relations
2nd—intentional interference with prospective economic relations
In order to state an interference claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that defendant’s conduct was independently wrongful. Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 376. Here, defendant argues that she had the right to execute a new lease with Kwon and was free to negotiate a new agreement. It is unclear if plaintiff is basing the “wrongfulness” on false statements or on a wrongful eviction. The pleading is uncertain in that respect.

Defendant also argues that she had nothing to benefit by giving Kwon a more favorable lease, and thus her intent to interfere is not alleged. Plaintiff should clarify the factual allegations that support the element of intent.

The 1st and 2nd causes of action are not duplicative, as one requires an actual contract and the other does not. Kasparian v. County of Los Angeles (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 242, 260-61. A party may properly allege alternative theories of recovery. Plaintiff concedes that the claims are mislabeled in the body of the pleading

3rd—breach of contract
Defendant argues that plaintiff failed to allege “which material terms of the 24-page lease agreement” were breached. Plaintiff alleges that defendant breached section 13 of the lease by failing to accept the assignment. See Comp. ¶35. As noted above, however, the lease is not attached nor is the language of section 13 set forth in the pleading. Leave to amend is granted.

4th—breach of the implied covenant
Plaintiff alleges that defendant unfairly interfered with plaintiff’s right to receive the benefits under the lease. The factual allegations support that claim. Defendant’s demurrer pertains only to the inclusion of plaintiff KSYH. As to plaintiff Lee, the demurrer is overruled.

Defendant filed an objection to the opposition because it was untimely served and filed. Because defendant was also able to file a reply addressing the substantive arguments, the notice defect is waived as one not affecting the substantial rights of the parties. C.C.P. § 475.