All Green Electronics Recycling, LLC vs. Funding Metrics, LLC

# Case Name Tentative 1 All Green Electronics Recycling, LLC vs. Funding Metrics, LLC

2026-01539367 [The court will address with the parties the duplicative case filing, All Green Electronics Recycling, LLC v. Funding Metrics, LLC dba Lendini, Case No. 30-2026-01539489, which is currently assigned to the Honorable Judge Theodore Howard.

With respect to Defendant Funding Metrics, LLC’s pending demurrer in this case, 01539367, this court has also considered Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s demurrer (ROA 22) and Plaintiff’s supporting declaration (ROA 20) which were both filed in case 01539489 only. The court has also considered the First Amended Complaint which is the subject of this demurrer but was only filed in case 01539489.]

Demurrer to Amended Complaint

Defendant Funding Metrics, LLC’s demurrer to Plaintiff All Green Electronics Recycling LLC’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED. (Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd. (e).)

Plaintiff shall have 20 days to file a Second Amended Complaint to address the deficiencies outlined below.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s negligence and declaratory relief claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations provided in Code Civ. Proc. §339, subd. (1). Defendant argues that the FAC discloses that Plaintiff’s claim accrued more than 2 years prior to the commencement of this action. Namely, Defendant cites to FAC ¶9, where Plaintiff admits that “between approximately May of 2022 and August of 2025, Lendini withdrew funds totaling $1,096,952 from its bank account without authorization.”

Defendant reasons that Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued when the first withdrawal was made from Plaintiff’s account and that Plaintiff should have suspected wrongdoing once the first withdrawal was made. Plaintiff does not dispute that a 2-year statute of limitations applies to the claims alleged here. Rather, Plaintiff argues that the FAC alleges Plaintiff did not discover the wrongdoing until August 2025, when an unlawful detainer proceeding was commenced against Plaintiff, triggering Plaintiff to conduct an audit of its accounts.

Plaintiff relies upon the discovery rule to preserve the timeliness of its claims. To sufficiently plead the applicability of the discovery rule, Plaintiff must allege with specificity “(1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.” (