Defendant's Motion to Seal Records
Motion type
Ruling
(Santa Monica Courthouse: Dept. O) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT O LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
etc. is granted. Moving party to give notice. Case Number: 25SMCV02352 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: O Defendants' demurrer to Plaintiff's complaint is sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff may have twenty (20) days in which to file and serve an amended complaint. Moving party to give notice. Case Number: 25SMCV03208 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: O
August 25, 2026 25SMCV03208 (Schwarz, et. al. v. Bigos, et. al.) RELEVANT BACKGROUND On June 23, 2025, plaintiffs Jesse Schwarz (Schwarz) and Kelsey Lewis (Lewis) (collectively, Plaintiffs or Tenants) filed their initial complaint against defendants Christopher J. Bigos (Christopher) and Marley R. Bigos (Marley) (collectively, Defendants or Landlords).
On August 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint (FAC) against Defendants alleging six causes of action: (1) conversion; (2) fraud; (3) breach of Civ. Code Sec. 1950.5; (4) breach of contract; (5) money had and received; (6) unfair competition.
On September 11, 2025, Landlords filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs alleging seven causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) anticipatory breach of contract; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) promissory estoppel; (5) fraud; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) recission of contract. Landlords allege that Tenants breached the parties' Lease by, among other things, failing to pay rent and utilities. (Cross-Complaint, P.P. 14-40.)
INSTANT MOTION On November 3, 2025, Tenants filed the instant demurrer to the second through seventh causes of action alleged in Landlords' Cross-Complaint. Landlords filed an opposition, and Tenants filed a reply.
MEET AND CONFER The Court finds that Tenants have satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (Klein Decl. P. 2.)
DISCUSSION I. TENANTS' DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT A. Second Cause of Action - Anticipatory Breach of Contract The Court agrees with Tenants that the Cross-Complaint fails to alleged facts sufficient to constitute a claim for anticipatory breach of contract.
The Court notes that Landlords do not oppose sustaining the demurrer to the Second Cause of Action but request leave to amend that claim to allege, to the extent supported by the facts, the specific statements, dates, speakers, recipients, and future obligations constituting any alleged repudiation. (Opp. at p. 2:24-25.)
Accordingly, the
Cited authorities
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?”