DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CVRI2601669·riverside·Civil·General Civil
Hearing todayCONTINUED

LEWIS vs ECOLOGY AUTO PARTS, INC.

Demurrer on 1st Amended Complaint

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 16, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLEWIS
DefendantECOLOGY AUTO PARTS, INC.

Ruling

indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration, i.e., goods sold, work done, etc., and (3) nonpayment.’ [Citation.] A cause of action for money had and received is stated if it is alleged the defendant ‘is indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum ‘for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff.’ [Citation.]” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460.) The SAC fails to state facts to support a cause of action for money had and received. Accordingly, the court sustains the demurrer, without leave to amend, as to the 4th cause of action.

1st Cause of Action for UCL Violations

In order to state a claim for a violation of the UCL, Plaintiff must allege that Defendant committed a business act or practice that is fraudulent, unlawful, or unfair. (Buller v. Sutter Health (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 981, 986.) A cause of action for violating this statute “borrows” actionable conduct and makes it independently actionable under the unfair competition law. (Smith v. State Farm (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 700, 718.) As Plaintiff has not stated a proper claim based on actionable conduct, the court sustains the demurrer, without leave to amend, as to the 1st cause of action.

The demurrer is sustained, without leave to amend, as to all four causes of action in the SAC.

4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME JAFFE vs NUEVO ROAD ANIMAL HOSPITAL MOTION TO STRIKE 2ND CVRI2502951 VETERINARY AMENDED COMPLAINT CORPORATION Tentative Ruling:

The motion is denied as moot in light of the ruling on the demurrer.

5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME LEWIS vs ECOLOGY DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED

AUTO PARTS, INC. COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling:

The hearing is continued to September 16, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. to consider the opposition. A reply may be filed by no later than September 9, 2026. No further briefing is permitted.

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

Source

Share