proposition that section 395, subd. (b), does not apply; it only states that venue under that provision is not “mandatory in Song-Beverly Act cases,” and venue may likewise be proper under section 395.5. (Tidrick, supra, 112 Cal.App.5 th at p. 1156.) Thus both section 395, subd. (b), and section 395.5 may furnish a basis for venue in a Song Beverly case.

Cameron Torabi, et al. v. John Tabares Construction, et al. Monday, May 18, 2026 CASE NUMBER: 25STCV28429 UNOPPOSED ___________________________________________________________________ Defendant AWEngingeering, Inc.”s Demurrer to the Complaint ___________________________________________________________________ Facts: This is an action for construction defects. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiffs Cameron Torabi and 24 M, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) enlisted Defendant John Tabares Construction and John Tabares (“Tabares”) to construct a commercial building. (Complaint ¶ 14.) After construction completed, Plaintiff discovered that Tabares and his subcontractors had performed their work negligently, leading to defects in the structure, roof, HVAC system, and building envelope, that have required expensive remediation. (Complaint ¶¶ 23?29.)

Procedural History: Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on September 29, 2025, alleging 18 causes of action: 1. Breach of Oral Contract 2. Common Counts 3. Negligence 4. Breach of Implied Warranty 5. Negligent Hiring/Supervision 6. Professional Negligence 7. Negligence Per Se 8. Unlicensed Contracting Disgorgement 9. Fraud and Deceit 10. Negligent Misrepresentation 11. Construction Defects

12. Unfair Competition 13. Declaratory Relief 14. Equitable Indemnity 15. Rescission and Restitution 16. Treble Damages and Fees (Code Civ. Proc. § 1029.8) 17. Attorney Fees 18. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Defendant AWEngineering, Inc. filed the present demurrer on November 5, 2025. No opposition has been filed, but Plaintiff attempted to file a First Amended Complaint on May 5, 2026, which was rejected by the clerk.

Analysis

I. DEMURRER A demurrer should be sustained only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 430.30, et seq.) In particular, as is relevant here, a court should sustain a demurrer if a complaint does not allege facts that are legally sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See id. § 430.10, subd. (e).)

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Richard S. Kemalyan Judge Richard S. Kemalyan dossier Other Demurrer in LA All LA County rulings Other Construction Defects cases

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

As the Supreme Court held in

: “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . . . Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Id. at p. 318; see also

[“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. [Citation.]”)

“In determining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer’ if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639.)

? 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.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Such demurrers “are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848.)

A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1081.) The demurrer also may be sustained without leave to amend where the nature of the defects and previous unsuccessful attempts to plead render it probable plaintiff cannot state a cause of action. (Krawitz v. Rusch (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 957, 967.)

Defendant AWEngingeering, Inc. (“Defendant”) demurrers to the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiffs Cameron Torabi and 24 M, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) on the grounds that Plaintiffs have failed to file the certificate of merit required by Code of Civil Procedure § 411.35. (Demurrer at p. 5?6.)

(a) In every action, . . . arising out of the professional negligence of . . . a person holding a valid registration as a professional engineer issued pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, . . . on or before the date of service of the complaint or cross-complaint on any defendant or cross-defendant, the attorney for the plaintiff or cross-complainant shall file and serve the certificate specified by subdivision (b). (Code Civ. Proc. § 411.35, subd. (a).)

Subdivision (b) requires an attorney to certify that they have consulted with professionals in the defendant’s field and that based on their consultation they conclude the action is meritorious. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 411.35, subd. (b).) “The failure to file a certificate in accordance with this section shall be grounds for a demurrer pursuant to Section 430.10 or a motion to strike pursuant to Section 435.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 411.35, subd. (g).)

Defendant argues that it is a licensed engineering firm which Plaintiff attempts to sue on grounds of professional negligence, but no certificate of merit has been filed. (Demurrer at pp. 5?6.) Plaintiffs have filed no opposition to the present motion, but have attempted to file a First Amended Complaint, rejected for filing, which includes allegations acknowledging the requirement of a certificate of merit and attaching one as an exhibit. (Rejected FAC ¶¶ 15?16.)

From the above, demurrer to the Complaint is proper, as it includes no certificate of merit. However, the failure to file a certificate of merit is curable by amendment. (See Price v. Dames & Moore (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 355, 360 [“The statute does not provide that failure to file a certificate requires dismissal. It declares that failure to file a certificate is a ground for demurrer or motion to strike, both procedures in which leave to amend is routinely and liberally granted to give the plaintiff a chance to cure the defect in question.”].) Plaintiff has shown that it is possible to cure the defect.

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs may file an amended pleading within 20 days of this order, or the court will deem the FAC rejected on May 10, 2026 as their amended pleading pursuant to this order.

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 732 CAMERON TORABI, et al.., Plaintiff v. JOHN TABARES CONTRUCTIONS, et al., Defendants. Case No.:

Hearing Date: May 17, 2026 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendant AWEngingeering, Inc.”s Demurrer to the Complaint

Defendant AWEngingeering, Inc.”s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs may file an amended pleading within 20 days of this order, or the court will deem the FAC rejected on May 10, 2026 as their amended pleading pursuant to this order. Defendant to give notice. Dated: May 17, 2026 __________________________________________ Hon. Richard S. Kemalyan Judge of the Superior Court Home -->)" -->