NINO VERULASHVILI, I, ET AL VS. ABC LEGAL SERVICES, LLC

“For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded (i.e., all ultimate facts alleged, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law).” Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 7(I)-A (citations omitted).

JUNE 1, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 10 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________

A special demurrer for uncertainty pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 430.10, subdivision (f), is disfavored and “will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., defendant cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against defendant.” Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 7(I)-A (citations omitted).

Discussion

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that each named plaintiff is a “sole trader”, rather than a natural person and alleges damages to a tourist company called “Airlines Travel” or “Airlines Plus" or “Airlines +.” If Plaintiff Verulashvili intends to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is directed to allege facts establishing the relationship between Plaintiff and “Airlines Plus”. Plaintiff cannot assert the rights of an entity.

Regardless, Plaintiffs have failed to allege a breach of contract claim. To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege “the existence of a contract, his or her own performance, the other party’s breach, and damages suffered by the complaining party.” Sonic Mfg Techs., Inc. v. AAE Sys., Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 464 (citation omitted).

Here, Plaintiffs state that they “hired ABC Legal to serve legal documents in a case against Meta Platforms, Inc.” Complaint, p. 2:7. Plaintiffs further allege that ABC Legal made “critical errors during the process,” including: • “Incorrectly listing the plaintiff and defendant as the same party in documents;” • “Failing to properly serve corrected documents to the defendant or to provide proof of service, despite assurances that this would be done;” and • “Failing to notify us about these issues before the court hearing, leaving us unprepared and in a compromised position.” Id., p. 2:8-13.

Plaintiffs allege that these errors resulted in financial losses “estimated at $530,000 due to business disruptions, missed opportunities, and additional legal expenses,” and associated reputational damages. Id., p. 2:15-18. Plaintiffs further allege that “our company’s CEO experienced extreme pressure and stress caused by ABC Legal’s actions, which led to a suicide attempt . . . [and has required] prolonged treatment and psychological rehabilitation.” Id., p. 2:19-22.

These allegations do not identify the contract, nor what terms were allegedly breached either by attaching the contract, stating the terms verbatim, or otherwise. See, e.g., Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299, 307. Plaintiffs also do not allege their own performance or excuse from performance with the terms of the contract, nor do they plead cognizable damages. For example, it is not apparent to the Court how Defendant’s alleged errors resulted in damages of $530,000. It is also unclear to the Court how Defendant’s alleged breach of contract caused emotional distress to Plaintiffs’ company’s CEO.

Indeed, such damages are generally not recoverable in breach of contract cases. Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543, 558 (“[D]amages for mental suffering and emotional distress are generally not recoverable in an action for breach of an ordinary commercial contract in California.”).

Plaintiff Nino Verulashvili filed an opposition solely for themselves. Plaintiff Dimitri Tenieshvili did not oppose Defendant’s demurrer.

JUNE 1, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 11 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Accordingly, Defendant’s unopposed demurrer is SUSTAINED as to Plaintiff Dimitri Tenieshvili, without leave to amend—it appears that this plaintiff has abandoned the action and the Court regardless finds the complaint lacks sufficient factual basis under Code of Civil Procedure 430.10, subdivision (e). Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED as to Plaintiff Nino Verulashvili for the same reason, but with leave to amend.

Plaintiff Verulashvili shall file an amended complaint, if any, within ten (10) days of service of notice of this order. Code Civ. Proc., § 472a, subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320, subd. (g). In any such amendment, Plaintiff Verulashvili shall include the case name and number for Plaintiff’s case against Meta, Inc., in which ABC Legal is alleged to have breached its contract with Plaintiff as the court has concerns that Plaintiff is attempting to improperly collaterally attack the results of Verulashvili et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., San Mateo County Superior Court Case Number 24-CIV-04960, which was resolved on its merits and not due to any service deficiencies. Because of that (in part) the Court believes that any amendment will likely be futile. However, it will give Plaintiff Verulashvili the opportunity regardless.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, defendant’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.