| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, Line 7. Defendants Brightline Consulting LLC, Ulrich Schmid-Maybach, Maureen Hurley and Ruth Suarez's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.
Plaintiff Greg Fleming's alter ego allegations are adequate. Plaintiff has pled ultimate facts regarding alter ego liability (e.g., unity of interest and inequitable result) identifying who is an alter ego to whom. (SAC 1-2; see Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538.)
Defendants' contention Plaintiff has failed to state a breach of contract claim fails. Plaintiff has alleged he and Defendants had an oral or implied contract regarding IT services, he provided the services, Defendants failed to pay him, and he is out the compensation. (See Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.) Individual liability pled by way of alter ego allegations.
Defendants' contention Plaintiff has failed to state a breach of contract claim fails. Plaintiff has alleged that upon request from Defendants, he performed IT work for Brightline and Brightline failed to pay him, Brightline and/or the other Defendants retained the funds that were meant for him, and Plaintiff has yet to receive those funds. (SAC 3-4.) He has stated a common count in equity. (See Mains v. City Title Ins. Co. (1949) 34 Cal.2d 580, 586.) Individual liability pled directly and by way of alter ego allegations.
Defendants' contention Plaintiff has failed to state a quantum meruit claim fails. Plaintiff has alleged that upon request from Defendants, he performed IT work for Brightline and Brightline failed to pay him, Brightline failed to pay him, he is entitled to the value of the services, which is $101,125.00. (SWAC 3-4.) He has stated an equitable claim for quantum meruit. (See E.J. Franks Construction, Inc. v. Sahota (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1127-1128
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?”
Defendants' demurrer to purported claims for promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment and "alter ego liability" fail because Plaintiff pleads no such claims.
Defendants shall answer within 20 days of this order. Prior to the hearing, Defendants shall lodge by email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org a proposed order repeating the above verbatim.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court