This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/18/2020 at 04:58:46 (UTC).

FRANK CHANG VS ORIETA PELAEZ, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 01/27/2020 FRANK CHANG filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ORIETA PELAEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0791

  • Filing Date:

    01/27/2020

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CHANG FRANK

Defendants

PELAEZ ORIETA

ORIETA A. PELAEZ LIVING TRUST

DEANDA SALLY

MANTZ JUANITA

PELAEZ ADRIAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

ROTHMAN ANTHONY JASON

Defendant Attorney

BUSTAMANTE ANDRES

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

9/11/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

9/1/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

7/13/2020: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

7/13/2020: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Andres Bustamante Re: Compliance with Meet and Confer CPCSec 430.41

7/13/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Andres Bustamante Re: Compliance with Meet and Confer CPCSec 430.41

Summons - Summons on Complaint

6/23/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

6/23/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

6/23/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

Response (name extension) - Response to Demurrer and Motion to strike

6/9/2020: Response (name extension) - Response to Demurrer and Motion to strike

Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

4/7/2020: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

4/7/2020: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Andres Bustamante Re: Compliance with Meet and Confer CPCSec 430.41

4/7/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Andres Bustamante Re: Compliance with Meet and Confer CPCSec 430.41

Complaint - Complaint

1/27/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/27/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

1/27/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/27/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

1/27/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

1/27/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/17/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 09/17/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/30/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 09/17/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • DocketOn the Amended Complaint (1st) filed by Frank Chang on 06/23/2020, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Frank Chang as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • DocketAddress for Anthony Jason Rothman (Attorney) null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) scheduled for 09/01/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/01/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2020
  • DocketStatus Conference Re: Status of the filing of the Amended Complaint scheduled for 07/20/2020 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 07/17/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • DocketDemurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10); Filed by: Sally Deanda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Declaration of Andres Bustamante Re: Compliance with Meet and Confer CPCSec 430.41; Filed by: Sally Deanda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • DocketMotion to Strike (not initial pleading); Filed by: Sally Deanda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
15 More Docket Entries
  • 04/06/2020
  • DocketPursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 06/23/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party on 04/06/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Frank Chang (Plaintiff); As to: Orieta Pelaez (Defendant); Orieta A. Pelaez Living Trust (Defendant); Sally Deanda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Frank Chang (Plaintiff); As to: Orieta Pelaez (Defendant); Orieta A. Pelaez Living Trust (Defendant); Sally Deanda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Frank Chang (Plaintiff); As to: Orieta Pelaez (Defendant); Orieta A. Pelaez Living Trust (Defendant); Sally Deanda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Frank Chang (Plaintiff); As to: Orieta Pelaez (Defendant); Orieta A. Pelaez Living Trust (Defendant); Sally Deanda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/30/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC00791    Hearing Date: September 01, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., September 1, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Chang v. Pelaez, et al. COMPL. FILED: 01-27-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC00791 DISC. C/O: 06-26-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 07-11-21

TRIAL DATE: 07-26-21

PROCEEDINGS: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Sally Deanda, Orieta Pelaez, and Orieta A. Pelaez Living Trust

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Frank Chang

DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP §§ 430.10, et seq.; 435)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Sally Deanda, Orieta Pelaez, and Orieta A. Pelaez Living Trust’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike are PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on June 9, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 27, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background & Discussion

On January 27, 2020, Plaintiff Frank Chang (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract against Defendants Sally Deanda (“Deanda”), Orieta Pelaez (“Pelaez”), and Orieta A. Pelaez Living Trust (“the Trust”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff’s single cause of action arises from an alleged agreement between Plaintiff and decedent Gabriel Pelaez (“the Decedent”). (Compl., ¶ 9.)

On April 7, 2020, Defendants filed the instant (1) Demurrer to Complaint (the “Demurrer”) and (2) Motion to Strike Allegations of Complaint (the “Motion”). On June 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Response to the Demurrer. No reply brief was filed.

At the initial hearing on June 23, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court he had electronically filed an amended complaint on June 9, 2020 that, due to a system error, was not reflected in the Court’s docket. (6/23/20 Minute Order.) For that reason, the Court continued the hearing to September 1, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. (Id.)

Having reviewed the Court’s docket, the Court finds that Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on June 9, 2020. A party may amend its pleading once without leave after a demurrer and/or motion to strike is filed, but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).) Here, the deadline to file an opposition to the Demurrer and Motion was June 10, 2020. Plaintiff’s FAC was timely filed and served on June 9, 2020.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Demurrer and Motion to Strike are PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Sally Deanda, Orieta Pelaez, and Orieta A. Pelaez Living Trust’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike are PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC00791    Hearing Date: June 23, 2020    Dept: 25

DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP § 430.10, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Sally Deanda, Orieta Pelaez, and Orieta A. Pelaez Living Trust’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. In addition, Defendants’ Motion to Strike is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on June 9, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of June 17, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On January 27, 2020, Plaintiff Frank Chang (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract against Defendants Sally Deanda (“Deanda”), Orieta Pelaez (“Pelaez”), and Orieta A. Pelaez Living Trust (“the Trust”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff’s single cause of action arises from an alleged agreement between Plaintiff and now deceased Gabriel Pelaez (“the Decedent”). (Compl., ¶ 9.)

On April 7, 2020, Defendants filed the instant (1) Demurrer to Complaint (the “Demurrer”) and (2) Motion to Strike Allegations of Complaint (the “Motion”). On June 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Response to the Demurrer. No reply brief was filed.

  1. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its

case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to

affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of

America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges

facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not

“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the

complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded

factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of

which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,

however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.

Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

 

B. Demurrer

As an initial matter, the Court notes that on June 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Response to the Demurrer indicating that, on that same day, he filed an amended complaint. (Response, p. 1.) Because of this, Plaintiff argues, the Demurrer and Motion to Strike should be taken off calendar. (Id.) However, because the Court could not find any such complaint, the Court proceeds to make a ruling on the merits of the Demurrer.

Defendant’s Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Dem., Bustamante Decl., ¶¶ 5-9.)

Plaintiff’s sole cause of action is for breach of contract. Defendants demur to the Complaint on the basis that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because it fails to properly plead breach of contract and because it is barred on its face by the applicable statute of limitations. (Dem., p. 2:21:25.)

“To establish a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must plead and prove (1) the existence of the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages to the plaintiff. [Citation.] ‘In an action based on a written contract, a plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language.’ [Citation.]” (Maxwell v. Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97-98.)

“Except as otherwise provided by statute, a cause of action for or against a person is not lost by reason of the person’s death, but survives subject to the applicable limitations period.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.20, subd. (a).) “[A] cause of action that survives may be asserted against the decedent’s personal representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the decedent’s successor in interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.40.) If a person against whom an action for breach of contact dies before the statute of limitations runs, then an action may be commenced within one year after the date of death. (Code Civ. Proc., § 366.2.)

Plaintiff alleges that on November 4, 2017, Plaintiff verbally agreed, and later confirmed in writing, to loan Decedent $25,000.00 to be paid back in $1,000.00 payments “as soon as possible” to purchase and repair an automobile. (Compl., ¶ 9.) On December 12, 2017, and December 26, 2017, Decedent made two $1,000.00 payments. (Id.) In February 2018, Decedent passed away suddenly. (Id., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Pelaez, as Decedent’s mother and owner of the car repair facility where Decedent worked, is responsible for all obligations and assets incurred on behalf of the facility. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Deanda, as Decedent’s wife, is now responsible for Decedent’s obligations. (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that he fulfilled his contractual duties by providing the funds to Decedent and that Defendants breached their contractual obligations by failing to pay the remaining $23,000.00 due and owing on the loan. (Id. at ¶¶ 13, 15.)

Plaintiff filed this action after Decedent’s death. Thus, the time limitations of Section 366.2 apply. Because the Complaint alleges that Decedent passed away in February of 2018, Plaintiff had to bring this action no later than February 2019. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 366.2, subd. (a).) Instead, it was filed almost a year later, on January 27, 2020. Thus, the face of the Complaint demonstrates that this action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Having determined that the Complaint is time-barred, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is MOOT.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Sally Deanda, Orieta Pelaez, and Orieta A. Pelaez Living Trust’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. In addition, Defendants’ Motion to Strike is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.