D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al.

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Please take notice, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Home With K & K LLC’s (“K&K”) demurrer to Plaintiff D7 Roofing Services, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as follows.

Background

This action arises from a roofing project performed by Plaintiff at the real property located at 4150 Florin Perkins, Sacramento, California 95826 (the “Property”). Plaintiff alleges it submitted a proposal to Defendants Jacobo Small and Tidal Wave Properties, LLC to complete the roofing on 26 mechanical units, along with installation of curbs and flashing, for $70,000. (FAC ¶¶ 8-9.) Mr. Small presented himself as the owner of the Property. (FAC ¶ 11.) The project was completed on September 12, 2024. Mr. Small and Tidal Wave Properties, LLC were billed, but the invoice was never paid. (FAC ¶¶ 12-14, Ex. B.)

Plaintiff filed the operative FAC on May 22, 2025, alleging causes of action for: (1) foreclosure of mechanics lien; (2) quantum meruit; (3) account stated; (4) monies due; (5) open book account; (6) breach of contract; (7) breach of implied-in-fact contract; (8) breach of oral contract; (9) unjust enrichment; and (10) restitution from the transferee based on quasi-contract and unjust enrichment. The FAC names Tidal Wave Properties, LLC; Jacobo Small; and 4150FlorinPerkins LLC as defendants, along with Does 1 through 50.

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

On June 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Doe Amendment naming K&K as Doe 1. The FAC contains the following factual allegations concerning Does 1 – 15:

5. Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are individuals and/or business entities doing business in Sacramento County and/or who are contracted to do work in Sacramento County. Each and every Defendant was at all relevant times the agents and/or employees of other Defendants and acted within the scope of said agency and/or employment. Plaintiff does not know the true names of Defendants identified as DOES 1 to 50 but will seek leave to amend this first amended complaint (“FAC”) if and when Plaintiff discovers the identity of any of the Defendants now sued under the fictitious names DOES 1 to 50.

6. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names, capacities, or bases for liability of Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by their fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this FAC to allege their true names, capacities, or bases for liability when the same has been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are in some manner liable to Plaintiff, or claim some right, title, or interest in the Subject Property that is junior and inferior to that of Plaintiff, or both.

(FAC ¶¶ 5-6 [emphasis added].) Each cause of action is alleged against Does 1-50, with the exception of the tenth cause of action for restitution from the transferee based on quasi-contract and unjust enrichment.

K&K demurs to the FAC in its entirety on the basis that it is uncertain and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action against it since the FAC “does not make any factual allegations as to [K&K].” (Demurrer 2:10-14.) K&K also demurs to the first, second, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action on the basis that they fail to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

Legal Standard

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings, raising issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party’s pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 422.10, 589.) A demurrer may only challenge defects on the face of the complaint or from matters that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) However, the face of the complaint includes facts contained in exhibits attached to the complaint. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.) A demurrer can be utilized where a complaint itself is incomplete or discloses some defense that would bar recovery. (Guardian North Bay, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 963, 971-972.)

In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a general demurrer, courts treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. Matters which may be judicially noticed may also be considered. The complaint is to be given a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. (Farmers v. Zerin (1997) 53 CaI.App.4th 445, 451.) Consideration of extrinsic evidence or facts asserted in the memorandum supporting or opposing the demurrer is improper. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief, we are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v.

Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.) Still, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the facts pleaded are sufficient to establish every element of the cause of action. (See, e.g., Martin v. Bridgeport Community Assn., Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1031; Sui v. Price (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 933, 938.) The allegations must be factual and specific, not vague or conclusionary. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians’ Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43-44.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action – not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) Finally, a demurrer may only be sustained where it disposes of an entire cause of action. (See, e.g., Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.)

Discussion

K&K demurs to the FAC in its entirety on uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts grounds arguing:

. . . In the case at hand, the [FAC] does not state any facts as to [K&K]. There is not one factual allegation to indicate what Plaintiff believes [K&K] did to make it liable to Plaintiff. The [FAC] is entirely uncertain as to what the factual basis is for Plaintiff’s claims against [K&K].

[K&K] is not mentioned in any of the causes of action, but it is swept into each one through the catchall terms “All Defendants” and “Does 1 through 50”. The [FAC] does not state any facts as to [K&K] to establish any of the elements of any of the causes of action. For example, the [FAC] does not allege that [K&K] had an “account” with Plaintiff for the Third Cause of Action for “Account Stated” or for the Fifth Cause of Action for “Open Book Account”. The [FAC] does not allege that Plaintiff had any type of contract with [K&K] for the Sixth Cause of Action (“Breach of Contract”), Seventh Cause of Action ('Breach of Implied in Fact Contract”) or the Eighth Cause of Action (“Breach of Oral Contract”). The [FAC] simply does not state any facts necessary to constitute any cause of action against [K&K].

(Mem. of P.&A. ISO Demurrer 4:16-5:2.)

The Court agrees.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

As discussed above, “[b]ecause a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, a plaintiff must show the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action.” (Rakestraw, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 43.) Further, in reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, the Court must accept as true all material facts properly pleaded and matters properly judicially noticed but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (290 Division (EAT), LLC v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 439, 452.)

The only factual allegations contained in the FAC concerning K&K’s involvement in the action are the Doe allegations made in paragraphs 5 and 6. These allegations are conclusory and, therefore, insufficient to support a cause of action being stated against it.

Accordingly, K&K’s demurrer to the FAC is its entirety is sustained. In light of this ruling and because Plaintiff has a motion for leave to amend pending, the Court declines to reach the remainder of K&K’s arguments made in its demurrer.

Leave to amend is granted since this is K&K’s first challenge to the pleadings. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies raised in K&K’s demurrer (and Defendant 4150FlorinPerkins LLC’s demurrer to the FAC) no later than June 9, 2026. Although not required by statute or court rule, Plaintiff is directed to present the clerk with a copy of this ruling at the time the Second Amended Complaint is filed to facilitate its filing.

K&K may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the Second Amended Complaint, 35 days if served by mail.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.