Residual Income Opportunities v. Cybersource Corp. CA2/3

Filed 5/3/21 Residual Income Opportunities v. Cybersource Corp. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

RESIDUAL INCOME B304534 OPPORTUNITIES, INC., et al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. BC627326)

v.

CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Yolanda Orozco, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Catanzarite Law Corporation, Kenneth J. Catanzarite and Brandon E. Woodward for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Farella Braun + Martel, Carly O. Alameda, Sushila Chanana and Kelly M. Matayoshi for Defendant and Respondent.

The parties accepted the trial court’s offer to submit on the tentative ruling, which sustained defendant’s demurrer to two causes of action without leave to amend but overruled it as to a third cause of action. The promise was that if the parties submitted on the tentative, that would be the ruling. However, the final order was different. It sustained the demurrer in its entirety without leave to amend and dismissed the moving defendant from the action; and it did so in this critical pretrial matter without affording plaintiffs oral argument as to that part of the ruling that was being changed. We reverse only that portion of the order that was different than the tentative and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to allow plaintiffs a fair opportunity to orally argue the demurrer as to the third cause of action. BACKGROUND Unable to satisfy a judgment, plaintiffs Residual Income Opportunities, Inc. and Reuven Cypers brought this action against numerous defendants seeking to reach various assets they believed had been fraudulently transferred away to make the debtor judgment-proof. Believing that Cybersource Corporation, dba Authorize.net (Cybersource) was one of the entities that helped in that effort, plaintiffs added it as a Doe defendant to their first amended complaint. Cybersource successfully demurred on the ground of uncertainty. The second amended complaint named Cybersource in the second cause of action (to set aside a fraudulent transfer), the third cause of action (for conspiracy to defraud), and the fourth cause of action (for declaratory relief). Cybersource filed a general demurrer. Although plaintiffs had notice, they failed to