This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/06/2020 at 03:34:19 (UTC).

VALUE VENTURES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CURTIS MCINTOSH, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/15/2019 VALUE VENTURES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against CURTIS MCINTOSH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9490

  • Filing Date:

    10/15/2019

  • 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

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

VALUE VENTURES LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Defendants

MCINTOSH CURTIS

STEPHENS KEVIN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

WHITE JOHNNY

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

3/3/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

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

3/3/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Hearing on De...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff Value Ventures, LLC's Demurrer to the Answer of Kevin Stephens

2/24/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff Value Ventures, LLC's Demurrer to the Answer of Kevin Stephens

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff Value Ventures, llc's Demurrer to the Answer of Curtis McIntosh

2/24/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff Value Ventures, llc's Demurrer to the Answer of Curtis McIntosh

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

12/27/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Answer - Answer

11/25/2019: Answer - Answer

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

11/22/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Answer - Answer of Curtis McIntosh to Unverified Complaint

11/22/2019: Answer - Answer of Curtis McIntosh to Unverified Complaint

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code section 430.41 Re: Good Faith Effort to Meet and Confer

11/22/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code section 430.41 Re: Good Faith Effort to Meet and Confer

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings - Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

11/20/2019: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings - Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings - Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

11/20/2019: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings - Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

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

11/12/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

11/12/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

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

10/15/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10/15/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Summons - Summons on Complaint

10/15/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/15/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

10/15/2019: Complaint - Complaint

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/18/2022
  • Hearing10/18/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2021
  • Hearing04/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: VALUE VENTURES, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Hearing on De...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 03/03/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 03/03/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 03/03/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 03/03/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketNotice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff Value Ventures, llc's Demurrer to the Answer of Curtis McIntosh; Filed by: VALUE VENTURES, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: CURTIS MCINTOSH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketNotice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff Value Ventures, LLC's Demurrer to the Answer of Kevin Stephens; Filed by: VALUE VENTURES, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: KEVIN STEPHENS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2019
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by: VALUE VENTURES, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2019
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by: VALUE VENTURES, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
8 More Docket Entries
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: VALUE VENTURES, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: CURTIS MCINTOSH (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 10/29/2019; Service Cost: 109.17; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: VALUE VENTURES, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: KEVIN STEPHENS (Defendant); Service Date: 10/30/2019; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/18/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: VALUE VENTURES, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: CURTIS MCINTOSH (Defendant); KEVIN STEPHENS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: VALUE VENTURES, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: CURTIS MCINTOSH (Defendant); KEVIN STEPHENS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: VALUE VENTURES, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: CURTIS MCINTOSH (Defendant); KEVIN STEPHENS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC09490    Hearing Date: March 03, 2020    Dept: 26

Value Ventures, LLC v. McIntosh, et al.

DEMURRER

(CCP §§ 430.31, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Value Ventures, LLC’s Demurrers to the Answers of Defendants Curtis McIntosh and Kevin Stephens are SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

ANALYSIS:

On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff Value Ventures, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for fraud, breach of contract, and conversion against Defendants Curtis McIntosh and Kevin Stephens (“Defendants”). Defendant filed Answers to the Complaint on November 22 and 25, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant Demurrers to the Answers on December 27, 2019. To date, no oppositions have been filed.

Discussion

Meet and Confer Requirement

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).)

The Court finds that the Demurrers are accompanied by a satisfactory meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Demurrers, White Decl., ¶¶4-5.)

Demurrer to Affirmative Defenses

Plaintiff demurs to each affirmative defense in the Answers for failure to allege sufficient facts and uncertainty. As an initial matter, demurrers for uncertainty are not permitted in courts of limited jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).) Therefore, the Court will not rule on the demurrers for uncertainty.

Regarding the allegations necessary to state an affirmative defense in an answer, the same pleading of “ultimate facts” rather than evidentiary matter or legal conclusions is required as when pleading the complaint. (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashimi (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 384.) The answer must aver facts as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and which are alleged in the complaint. (Ibid.) The various affirmative defenses must be separately stated and must refer to the causes of action to which they relate “in a manner by which they may be intelligently distinguished.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.30, subd. (g).)

The determination of the sufficiency of the answer requires an examination of the complaint because its adequacy is with reference to the complaint it purports to answer. (Chadbourn, Grossman, Van Alstyne, Cal. Pleading, § 1334, pp. 490, 491; Miller & Lux, Inc., v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp., 120 Cal.App. 589, 600, 8 P.2d 560.) This requirement, however, does not mean that the allegations of the complaint, if denied, are to be taken as true, the rule being that the demurrer to the answer admits all issuable facts pleaded therein and eliminates all allegations of the complaint denied by the answer. (Miller & Lux, Inc., v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp., supra, 120 Cal.App. p. 600, 8 P.2d 560; Sheward v. Citizens' Water Co., 90 Cal. 635, 639, 27 P. 439; Chadbourn, Grossman, Van Alstyne, Cal. Pleading, § 1334, p. 489.)

(South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 733.)

The Complaint alleges details regarding the parties’ relationship as follows. On or about August 23, 2017, Plaintiff agreed to purchase from Defendants a proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Case In

re Jan Moran Fish, Bankruptcy District for the Central District of California, Case No.

6:16-bk-13896-WJ, and all monies payable pursuant to said proof of claim. (Compl., ¶7.) In exchange for the proof of claim, Plaintiff paid Defendants $5,500.00. (Id. at ¶8.) In breach of the parties’ agreement, Defendants absconded with the proceeds of the proof of claim. (Id. at ¶9.)

Plaintiff demurs to the affirmative defenses on the ground that they fail to allege sufficient facts and do not specify to which cause or causes of action they pertain. As to the second part, Plaintiff is correct. None of the affirmative defenses indicate to which cause of action they respond, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.30, subdivision (g). This alone is reason to sustain the Demurrers. Furthermore, none of the affirmative defenses include factual allegations such as those set forth in the Complaint. Instead, they generically allege the nature of the affirmative defense without supporting details. For example, the first affirmative defense alleges that “the complaint is barred in whole or in part by the litigation privilege.” (Answers, ¶3.) As all the affirmative defenses are inadequately stated in this manner, the Demurrers are also sustained on this basis.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Value Ventures, LLC’s Demurrers to the Answers of Defendants Curtis McIntosh and Kevin Stephens are SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party to give notice.