This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2020 at 03:41:51 (UTC).

LA LOMA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY VS CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC.

Case Summary

On 09/04/2019 LA LOMA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC. 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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8184

  • Filing Date:

    09/04/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • 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

LA LOMA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

Defendant

CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

ROTHNER GLENN

Defendant Attorney

MCDONALD SHEILA

 

Court Documents

Answer - Answer

1/30/2020: Answer - Answer

Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint

1/2/2020: Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

12/23/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

12/17/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

Reply (name extension) - Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Demurrer

12/10/2019: Reply (name extension) - Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Demurrer

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

11/7/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Demurrer

12/4/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Demurrer

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

9/27/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

9/27/2019: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint

10/3/2019: Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

9/4/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

9/4/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/4/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

9/4/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

9/4/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

3 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/07/2022
  • Hearing09/07/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • Hearing03/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Defendant); As to: La Loma Development Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Amended Complaint 1st: Name Extension: 1st; As To Parties changed from Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Defendant) to Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Amended Complaint 2nd: Name Extension changed from 1st to 2nd; As To Parties changed from Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Defendant) to Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2020
  • DocketAmended Complaint; Filed by: La Loma Development Company (Plaintiff); As to: Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2019
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 12/17/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 12/17/2019; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • DocketReply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Demurrer; Filed by: La Loma Development Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
6 More Docket Entries
  • 09/27/2019
  • DocketProof of Mailing (Substituted Service); Filed by: La Loma Development Company (Plaintiff); As to: Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Defendant); Mailing Date: 09/12/2019; Service Cost: 125.00; Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: La Loma Development Company (Plaintiff); As to: Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 09/12/2019; Service Cost: 125.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/07/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: La Loma Development Company (Plaintiff); As to: Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: La Loma Development Company (Plaintiff); As to: Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: La Loma Development Company (Plaintiff); As to: Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC08184    Hearing Date: December 17, 2019    Dept: 94

DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(CCP §§ 430.10, 436)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Carollo Engineers, Inc.’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

OPPOSITION: Filed on Dec. 4, 2019 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None as of Dec. 12, 2019 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff La Loma Development Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract against Defendant Carollo Engineers, Inc. (“Defendant”). On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

Defendant filed a Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint on November 7, 2019. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on December 4, 2019. No reply brief has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.)  When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.  (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.)  In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).)  A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)  Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Id.)  The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.  (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

A motion to strike lies either (1) to strike any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.)

III. Discussion

1. Meet & Confer Requirement

Code of Civil Procedure, section 430.31 requires that before filing a demurrer, the demurring party meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer to determine whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.31, subd. (a).) The demurring party must file a declaration stating either that the parties met and conferred without reaching an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer or stating the party subject to the demurrer failed to respond to meet and confer efforts or otherwise failed to do so in good faith. (Id., subd. (a)(3)(A)-(B).)

Defendant provides a declaration from its attorney of record Tyler S. Sanders (“Sanders”). (Mot., Sanders Decl., ¶ 1.) Sanders states he met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel via telephone on October 3, 2019 regarding deficiencies he perceived in the Complaint, resulting Plaintiff agreeing to amend the complaint. (Id., ¶ 3.) Sanders states he and Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred via telephone on October 28, 2019 regarding the deficiencies he perceived in the FAC but were unable resolve the disagreement. (Id., ¶ 6.).

The meet and confer requirement is satisfied.

2. Breach of Contract (First Cause of Action)

“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.)

In its Form Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on or about February 2018, the parties entered into a “written contract and written and oral modification” entitled Construction Subcontract for Design-Build Project (the “Contract”) (Comp., BC-1), that Defendant breached the Contract by failing to pay invoices (Id., BC-2), that Plaintiff performed all obligations to defendant except those plaintiff was prevented or excused from performing (Id., BC-3), and that plaintiff suffered damages proximately caused by defendant’s breach in the amount of $25,000 resulting from unpaid invoices (Id., BC-4.)

Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract because the express terms of the Contract bar any oral modifications Plaintiff claims exist, so the maximum amount Plaintiff would be entitled to under the contract is $10,000. (Mot., p. 8.) Defendant also argues Plaintiff has not adequately pled the terms of the alleged contract and breach because it has failed to attach any written contract modifications to the FAC. (Mot., p. 7.) The Court agrees. It is not possible to determine the terms of the oral contract from Plaintiff’s bare allegation that oral modifications existed. Plaintiff must clearly allege the nature of the parties’ contractual relationship in order to allege a claim thereon.

The demurrer to the FAC is sustained with leave to amend.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Carollo Engineers, Inc.’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.