Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint; Defendant's Motion to Strike Suit [CCP 425.16]
including a meaningful assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each party's position in light of all available information. (Townsend v. Superior Court (EMC Mortgage Co.) (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431; Obregon v. Superior Court (Cimm's, Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424).
The parties shall file a joint status statement of not more than ten (10) pages not later than five (5) court days prior to the continued hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion. The joint status statement shall indicate which of Defendant's responses remain at issue. Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED to July 16, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court for further good faith meet and confer on the disputed discovery.
CV-25-012491 - FRELIX, ANTONIO vs OAKLAND MOTOR CARS INC - Defendant's Petition to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Putative Class Claims, and Stay Proceedings - CONTINUED, by stipulation. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation of June 5, 2026, this matter is CONTINUED to July 16, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.
CV-26-001048 - LANDUCCI, STEPHEN vs ROWE, BENJAMIN - a) Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint - SUSTAINED, without leave to amend; b) Defendant's Motion to Strike Suit [CCP 425.16] - MOOT.
a) Request For Judicial Notice Defendant requests judicial notice of documents and proceedings from Stanislaus County case number PR-23-000109. Under Evidence Code section 452, the Court may take judicial notice of the existence and legal effect of court records but may not take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements or disputed factual findings contained therein. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: The request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence, filing, and legal effect of the documents, including the fact of settlement and dismissal with prejudice. The request is DENIED to the extent it seeks judicial notice of the truth of factual assertions or testimony contained in those materials.
Legal Standard
A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. The Court assumes the truth of all properly pleaded material facts, but not conclusions of law or fact. The Court also considers matters properly subject to judicial notice.
First Cause of Action-Breach of Contract The first cause of action fails to state a claim against Defendant and it is barred by the two-year statue of limitations period for oral agreements. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 339). The complaint alleges a contract between Plaintiff and his father, Leo Landucci. Defendant is not alleged to be a party to the contract. A breach of contract claim requires that the defendant be a party to the contract or otherwise bound by it. The complaint affirmatively demonstrates that Defendant was acting solely as the decedent's attorney.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
This cause of action also fails due to the Complaint's failure to allege that Defendant was a party to the agreement he is alleged to have breached. (Abdelhamid v. Fire Ins. Exchange, (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 990). Plaintiff's opposition does not meaningfully dispute this defect and instead seeks leave to amend to assert different causes of action. Additionally, the claim appears time-barred on the face of the pleadings. Plaintiff alleges a breach occurring in July 2021, yet this action was filed in 2026.
The delayed discovery rule postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action. (Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Sols., Inc., (2013) 55 Cal. 4th 1185) The Complaint does not allege facts that would support the application of the delayed discovery rule such as the date of Plaintiff's discovery of the relevant facts supporting the cause of action for breach of contract.
The continuing violation doctrine aggregates a series of wrongs or injuries for purposes of the statute of limitations, treating the limitations period as accruing for all of them upon commission or sufferance of the last of them. (Willis v. City of Carlsbad, (2020) 48 Cal. App. 5th 1104; Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Sols., Inc., (2013) 55 Cal. 4th 1185). The Complaint does not allege facts that would support the application of this doctrine such as allegations of a pattern of reasonably frequent and similar acts by Defendant or a series of wrongs by Defendant that would defeat the applicable Statute of Limitations period herein. Because Defendant was not a party to the alleged contract, and this defect cannot be cured by amendment, the demurrer to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Second Cause of Action-Fraud The second cause of action for fraud is based on statements Defendant allegedly made in connection with prior probate litigation, including a declaration submitted to the court. The claim is barred by the litigation privilege (Civil Code Sec. 47(b)), which applies broadly to communications made in connection with judicial proceedings. The privilege is absolute and applies regardless of malice. Plaintiff's attempt to invoke an "extrinsic fraud" exception is unavailing.
The complaint does not allege facts demonstrating that Plaintiff was prevented from participating in the prior proceeding or otherwise deprived of an opportunity to be heard. Further, Plaintiff fails to plead the element of reliance. The complaint alleges that the court relied on Defendant's statements--not Plaintiff. This is insufficient as a matter of law. Judicially noticeable materials also establish that the underlying probate action was resolved by settlement and dismissed with prejudice, further undermining Plaintiff's assertions of causation and damages.
Because the claim is barred by the litigation privilege and cannot be cured by amendment, the demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Leave To Amend Plaintiff requests leave to amend to assert claims for: Tortious interference with expected inheritance, and Breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a reasonable possibility that amendment would cure the defects. The proposed claims are legally deficient for the following reasons: A tortious interference claim is unavailable where the plaintiff had an adequate remedy, such as a trust contest, which Plaintiff previously pursued and resolved by settlement. A breach of fiduciary duty claim cannot be asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant, as any duty was owed to the decedent, not Plaintiff, and Plaintiff lacks standing. Any claims based on Defendant's litigation conduct would remain barred by the litigation privilege. Accordingly, leave to amend is denied.
Ruling: Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above. Defendant Benjamin Rowe's demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to all causes of action. The complaint is dismissed as to Defendant Benjamin Rowe.
b) Based on the Court's ruling on the related demurrer, this motion is accordingly, moot.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: ***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***