Anderson vs. Tan

Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR DEPARTMENT N16

HON. Donald F. Gaffney

Counsel and Parties Please Note: Law and Motion in Department N16 is heard on Wednesdays at 9:00 a.m.

Date: July 15, 2026

Tentative Rulings will be posted on the Internet on the day before the hearing by 5:00 p.m. [or earlier] whenever possible. To submit on the tentative ruling, please contact the clerk at (657) 622-5616, after contacting opposing party/counsel. Prevailing party shall give notice of the Ruling and prepare the Order/Judgment for the Court’s signature if required.

NOTE: After posting of tentative rulings, the Court will not take the motion off calendar and will grant a continuance of the motion only upon stipulation of all affected parties.

If no appearances are made on the calendared motion date, then oral argument will be deemed to have been waived and the tentative ruling will become the Court’s final ruling.

# Case Name Tentative 1 Anderson vs. TENTATIVE RULING: Tan For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Joan Celia Lee’s demurrer to the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, thirteenth, and fifteenth causes of action of the complaint by Plaintiff Mac Anderson, aka Max Anderson, individually and derivatively on behalf of Excelsior Collectibles, LLC is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.

Defendant Lee argues that:

• The complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute a conspiracy between Defendant Lee and Defendants Derek Tan, individually and d/b/a Anastasia’s Collectibles, Anastasia Tan, individual and d/b/a Anastasia’s Collectibles (together, the Tan Defendants) as there is no allegation of any agreement to commit wrongdoing between the defendants. • The second cause of action fails because Plaintiff fails to allege any specific personal property that Defendant Lee converted. • The sixth cause of action for unjust enrichment is not a cause of action.

• The seventh and eighth causes of action for constructive trust and resulting trust are remedies and not stand alone causes of action. • There is no standalone cause of action for willful misconduct. • Plaintiff fails to allege any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice committed by Defendant Lee. • The remaining causes of action are not sufficiently pled and/or are remedies and not standalone causes of action.

Plaintiff, however, did not file an opposition to the demurrer and failed to address any of the arguments that Defendant makes. The failure to oppose a demurrer may be construed as having abandoned the claims. (See Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20 (“Plaintiffs did not oppose the County’s demurrer to this portion of their seventh cause of action and have submitted no argument on the issue in their briefs on appeal. Accordingly, we deem plaintiffs to have abandoned the issue”).)

In addition, it is axiomatic that the failure to challenge a contention in a brief results in the concession of that argument. (DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 562, 566 (“By failing to argue the contrary, plaintiffs concede this issue”); Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal. App. 4th 507, 529 (“failure to address the threshold question . . . effectively concedes that issue and renders its remaining arguments moot”); Glendale Redevelopment Agency v.

Parks (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4th 1409, 1424 (issue is impliedly conceded by failing to address it).)

Accordingly, the court finds Plaintiff’s failure to substantively oppose any of the arguments raised in the demurrer to be an abandonment of the issues and a concession that Defendant’s demurrer/motion has merit.

Should Plaintiff desire to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall file and serve the amended complaint within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.

Moving Defendant to give notice.

2 Mendez vs. TENTATIVE RULING: KIA American, Inc. Demurrer

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Kia America, Inc.’s demurrer to Plaintiff Alejandra Mendez’s First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.