Demurrer to Cross-complaint
submit their submit their claims claims to to arbitration arbitration in in accordance accordance with with the the terms terms of the arbitration agreement. the arbitration agreement.
The is VACATED. The case management conference is VACATED.
This pending completion This matter is STAYED pending completion of the arbitration until further order of the court. proceedings or until court. (Code Civ. Civ. Proc. §1281.4.) Proc. §1281.4.) A status conference re: re: Status of ADR proceedings is set for January 22, 2027 at 9:00 a.m.a.m. in this department. Five days before department. before the status conference, conference, the the parties are ordered to submit a a joint statement describing describing the status of status of the the arbitration. arbitration.
provide notice of this ruling. Defendants shall provide ruling.
v. | Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Virginia 53. | Fernandez v.
53. Virginia Fernandez’s Fernandez’s Demurrer to the FCI Lender First Amended Amended Cross-Complaint is STRICKENSTRICKEN as untimely. untimely. Services, Services,, . Inc. The First Amended The First Cross-Complaint was Amended Cross-Complaint was filed filed and and served served on on Inc. 10/20/25. (ROA 417.) Cross-Defendant did not file this 10/20/25. 2024- until 3/12/26. demurrer until 3/12/26. Therefore, Therefore, it is untimely as it was not 01374564 within 30 days of the filed within pleading. (Code Civ. the challenged pleading. Civ. Proc., § Proc., § 430.40(a).) 430.40(a).)
The case management The case management conference conference is is continued continued to to October October 12, 12, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28. 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28.
an answer within 10 Cross-defendant shall file an 10 days. days.
Defoort shall Defoort shall give give notice notice of of this this ruling. ruling.
54. | Jianan 54. Jianan Cross-defendant Jianan Jianan International International USA Holdings, Holdings, Inc.’s Inc.’s International International demurrer to USS Cal Cal Builders, Inc.’s Inc.’s Cross-complaint is is USA USA OVERRULED. (Code OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Civ. Proc., Proc., §§ 430.10, 430.10, subd. subd. (e).) (e).) Holdings, Holdings, an Answer to the Cross-complaint Moving party shall file an Inc. v. Inc. v. USS USS Cal Builders, 10 days. within 10 days. Inc. Inc. 11st cause of st cause of action: action: breach breach of of contract. contract. 2025- 2025- This cause of This cause of action action states states sufficient sufficient facts. facts. (Oasis (Oasis West West 01506043 01506043 Realty, LLC Realty, LLC v. v.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Goldman Goldman (2011) (2011) 51 51 Cal.4th Cal.4th 811, 811, 821 821 [elements]; Cross-complaint, [elements]; Cross-complaint, ¶¶ 9] 14, 14, 17-19, 17-19, Ex. Ex. 11 [existence Subscription Agreement and terms], of Subscription terms], 1616 [performance], [performance], 21, 21, 24 [breach], 24 [breach], 26 26 [proximately [proximately caused caused damages].) damages].)
While moving party contends that the term term “assist” “assist” in §§ §§ 10.2, 10.2, 10.4, and 11.2 10.4, 11.2 of the Subscription Agreement is too vague to the Subscription determined on demurrer, be enforceable, this cannot be determined demurrer, particularly as the ““assistance” assistance” is tied tied to specific criteria criteria and and benchmarks. (See benchmarks. (See Tiffany Tiffany Builders, Builders, LLC LLC v. v. Delrahim Delrahim (2023) (2023) Cal.App.5th 536, 544–545 97 Cal.App.5th 544-545 [interpretation [interpretation of indefinite indefinite contract terms].) terms].) Further, the alleged breaches are not the alleged limited to ““assistance.” assistance.” (Cross-complaint, (Cross-complaint, ¶ 19,19, [alleging [alleging
moving party breached § moving § 10.5(a) 10.5(a) of the Subscription Subscription Agreement (Ex.(Ex. 1), 1), requiring requiring moving moving party to appoint two ““qualified qualified employees ... ... to participate in to participate in the the Company's Company's operations in marketing operations in full-time and assist in the Company sales growth growth and profit margin margin growth” growth” (emphasis added), by providing providing only one unqualified employee who “was “was unable to meaningfully participate in in marketing marketing or sales activities in the the United United States;” States;” see also PH PH II, II, Inc. v.
Superior Inc. v. Court (1995) Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th Cal.App.4th 1680, 1680, 1682 1682 [“demurrer [“demurrer does not lie to a portion portion of a a cause of action”]; action”]; Quelimane Co., Co., Inc. v. Stewart Inc. v. Title Guar. Title Guar. Co. Co. (1998) (1998) 1919 Cal.4th Cal.4th 26, 26, 38-39 [a [a complaint is good against a good a general general demurrer so long long as it states a valid valid action cause of action under any theory].) theory].)
Finally, Finally, any statute of limitations issue does not ““clearly clearly and and complaint; it is not affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint; enough that enough the complaint that the complaint shows shows that that the the action action may may bebe barred.” barred.” (Geneva Towers Towers Ltd. Ltd. Partnership Partnership v. v. City City of of San San (2003) 29 Cal.4th Francisco (2003) Cal.4th 769, 769, 781; 781; emphasis added; added; internal citation internal citation omitted.) omitted.)
2°4 2 cause of nd cause of action: action: fraud; fraud; 4 4th cause of th cause of action: action: negligent negligent misrepresentation. misrepresentation.
These causes of action action state sufficient facts. facts. (Lazar v.v. Superior Court (1996) (1996) 12 12 Cal.4 Cal.4*th ” 631, 631, 638 [intentional misrepresentation elements], misrepresentation elements], 645 645 [specific [specific pleading pleading required]; required]; Small Small v.v. Fritz Fritz Companies, Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th Cal.4th 167, 167, 173- 173- 174 [negligent misrepresentation 174 misrepresentation elements], elements], 184 184 [specific [specific pleading required]; pleading required]; Cross-complaint, Cross-complaint, ¶¶ 9] 11-13, 11-13, 28, 28, 46 [alleging that during [alleging during negotiations in 2017 and and 2018, 2018, and and prior to to the execution of the execution of the the Subscription Subscription Agreement Agreement on on 11-23-18, 11-23-18, Liu Liu Haoxue, aka aka ““Mr.
Mr. Leo,” Leo,” the Vice President of MP’s MP’s parent company, “repeatedly company, “repeatedly told told USS Cal Cal Builders’ president, Allen Builders’ president, Othman, that Zhongqing Othman, Jianan – Zhongqing Jianan - and, and, by extension, Jianan – extension, Jianan — were very were very well well connected connected with with Chinese Chinese developers developers and and that that USS Cal USS Cal Builders Builders would would get get new new clients clients and and new new construction construction contracts if USS Cal Cal Builders partnered partnered with with Zhongqing Zhongqing Jianan Jianan Construction Construction Group via via its U.S.
U.S. subsidiary, subsidiary, Jianan”], Jianan”], 29-31, 29-31, 48 48 [falsity, scienter, [falsity, scienter, reliance], reliance], 5050 [reliance], [reliance], 32, 32, 51 51 [proximately [proximately caused damages].) caused damages].)
Moving party contends these claims fail fail because (1) (1) the alleged alleged misrepresentation misrepresentation that it was “ “very very well well connected connected with with Chinese developers” developers” is not not false, “as “as that assertion assertion is both true both and known true and known toto be be true by USS true by USS Cal Cal (and (and anyone anyone who who performs an performs an internet search for Zhongqing internet search Zhongqing Jianan Group);” Group);” and (2) the alleged and alleged misrepresentation misrepresentation that cross-complainant “would “would get new clients andand new construction construction contracts” contracts” is an inactionable opinion inactionable opinion regarding regarding future future events. events. (Demurrer (Demurrer atat
5:24-6:10, and FN FN 3.) 3.) This argument fails. fails. Even Even if moving moving party is correct that the representation representation regarding regarding future insufficient, which events is insufficient, which is not apparent from the face of the pleading, the the pleading, the Cross-complaint alleges that both that both representations (4 29, representations are false (¶¶ 29, 31), 31), which allegation allegation the court must accept as true. (De/ E. true. (Del E. Webb Webb Corp. Corp. v. v. Structural Materials Co. Materials Co. (1981) (1981) 123 123 Cal.App.3d Cal.App.3d 593, 593, 604 [for purposes of the challenged pleading demurrer, the allegations of the pleading must be accepted as true].) accepted true].)
Further, like the action, any timeliness defect is the first cause of action, not “clearly “clearly and affirmatively” affirmatively” shown shown on the face of the Cross- complaint. (Geneva Towers complaint. Towers Ltd. Ltd. Partnership Partnership v. v. City City of of San San Francisco, Francisco, supra at 781.) 781.)
34 3 cause of action: false promise. rd cause of action: false promise.
This cause of action action states sufficient facts. facts. (CACI 1902 1902 [elements]; Cross-complaint, [elements]; Cross-complaint, ¶¶ 17-19, 17-19, 36, 36, 37 37 [false [false promises in promises in Subscription Subscription Agreement], Agreement], 38,38, 39 39 [scienter], [scienter], 41 41 reliance], 42 [proximately [lack of awareness, reliance], [proximately caused caused damages].) damages].) Moving Moving party’s party’s arguments as to this cause of action fail action fail for for the same reasons the same reasons as as discussed discussed above. above.
The case management The case management conference conference is is continued continued to to October October 12, 12, a.m. in 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28. C28.
shall give notice of this ruling. Cross-complainant shall ruling.
55. | Berentis v. 55. v. Attorney Arthur Petrousian’s Petrousian’s motion motion to be relieved as attorney attorney Seybert record for plaintiff Jayson of record GRANTED. Jayson Berentis is GRANTED.
2024- 2024- The order shall The order shall become become effective effective upon upon the the filing filing of of the the proof proof of of 01430186 01430186 service of service of the executed order. the executed order.
Moving counsel Moving counsel Petrousian Petrousian shall shall give give notice notice of of this this ruling. ruling.
56. | Njeri 56. Njeri v. v. Defendant Tesla, Tesla, Inc.’s Inc.’s motion motion to compel compel arbitration is Tesla, Inc. Tesla, Inc. GRANTED. (See GRANTED. (See Code Code Civ. Civ. Proc., Proc., § § 1281.2.) 1281.2.)
2025- 2025- Plaintiff Irene Njeri is ORDERED to arbitrate her claims against 01491391 01491391 defendant in defendant in accordance accordance with with the the terms of the terms of the arbitration arbitration provision provision in the parties’ in the parties’ Motor Vehicle Order Agreement (MVOA). (See Kim Decl. (MVOA). Decl. at Ex. Ex. 11 [MVOA]; [MVOA]; Sanders Decl. Decl. at Ex. Ex. 11 [same].) [same].)
Defendant has Defendant has met met its its burden burden to demonstrate the to demonstrate the existence existence of of controversy. (See Ramirez v. an agreement to arbitrate the controversy. v. Golden Queen Mining Co.,Co., LLC (2024) (2024) 102102 Cal.App.5th Cal.App.5th 821, 830-832 [three-step 830-832 [three-step burden burden shifting process]; process]; Iyere v. Wise Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) Auto Group (2023) 87 87 Cal.App.5th Cal.App.5th 747, 747, 755 755 [same]; [same]; see see also also Kim Decl. Kim Decl. ¶¶ 9] 2-7, 2-7, Ex. Ex. 11 [MVOA].) [MVOA].) Plaintiff Plaintiff has has not not challenged challenged