O’Kane v. Radovich

refusing declaratory relief . . . .’ ”].) Thus, the demurrer to the eighth cause of action is OVERRULED.

Ninth Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment

Cross-Defendant argues this claim should be dismissed because unjust enrichment is not a cause of action but a claim for restitution.

There is a split of authority as to whether “unjust enrichment” is an independent cause of action. (Levine v. Blue Shield of California (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1138 [“Although some California courts have suggested the existence of a separate cause of action for unjust enrichment [citation], this court has recently held that ‘[t]here is no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment.’ ”].) The Court will follow Peterson v. Cellco Partnership (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1583, which recognized unjust enrichment as a separate claim. Thus, the demurrer to the ninth cause of action is OVERRULED.

Motion to Strike

Because the fraud-based causes of action are sufficiently pled, the claim for punitive damages is properly pled. Thus, the motion to strike is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice. 106 O’Kane v. Radovich, MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL - 2022-01276312 GRANTED

FBT Gibbons LLP (“Moving Attorney”) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for (1) Defendant Dragica Radovich and (2) Defendant Chaslav Radovich.

The motion is unopposed. Moving Attorney has stated a basis for permissive withdrawal under Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16. The motion satisfies the notice, declaration, and proposed order requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.

The court will interlineate Paragraph 7 of the orders with the next hearing date: 06/29/26 at 9:00 a.m. in Department N14 - Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record.

The court will interlineate Paragraph 8 of the orders with the following additional hearing: 08/24/26 at 9:00 a.m. in Department N14 – Motion for Continuance of Trial.