Demurrer__with_motion_to_strike_ccp_43010

Motion

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.December 12, 2018

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/01/2019 02:04 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Hung,Deputy Clerk — Jean IM. Daly (SBN 159129) Christy Gargalis (SBN 216622) MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP 801 South Grand Avenue, Ninth Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-4613 Telephone: (213) 623-7400 Facsimile: (213) 623-6336 E-Mail jdaly@murchisonlaw.com cgargalis@murchisonlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT © 00 N N oo Oo A NN -_ wm - 0 VICTOR GUERRA; CENTRO CASE NO. 18STCV08030 PROFESSIONAL LATINO, INC., 12 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL Plaintiffs, INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF 13 DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO VS. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, 14 DECLARATION OF CHRISTY ANTRANIK (ANDY) KHACHATURIAN; GARGALIS 15 || ANTRANIK (ANDY) KHACHATURIAN as Trustee of THE KHACHATURIAN FAMILY | [Reservation ID No.: 415464781546] 16 || GRANTOR TRUST dated July 28, 2016; Date: December 3, 2019 ANTRANIK (ANDY) KHACHATURIAN as Time: 9:15am. 17 || attorney in fact for and successor in Dept.: 96 interest to MARTIN AND ASDGHIK 18 || KHACHATURIAN; ROSCOE CENTER Assigned to Hon. Anthony Mohr, Dept. 96 MANAGEMENT; JAVIER CAZARES, an 19 || individual dba LOS CABOS Action Filed: December 12, 2018 RESTAURANT; JOSE PEREZ, and Trial Date: None Set 20 || individual dba LOS CABOS RESTAURANT; JOSE CAZARES an individual dba LOS CABOS RESTAURANT; SAN FERNANDO VALLEY PATIENTS' COOPERATICE; STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE N N N = 23 || COMPANY, THE GREENSPAN COMPANY and DOES 1 to 20, 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 28 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 3, 2019, at 9:15 a.m., in Department 96 1 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS © 00 ~N o o oa bh W O N = N O N N D N N ND RD N N N M DN = 2 = AO 2 =a =a aA a a a © ~N OO Hh W O N = 0 © © N O 6 hh O D N = 2 0 of the above entitled court, located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, Ca lifornia 90012; Defendant, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ("State F arm") will demur to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. This Demurrer is authorized under California Code of Civil Procedure section 430. 10. Defendant's Demurrer will be based upon this Notice of Demurrer and th e accompanying Demurrer to the Complaint, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Christy Gargalis, the pleadings, papers, and records on fil e in this action, and such other further oral and/or documentary evidence as may properly b e before the Court at the time of hearing on the demurrer. DATED: July 1, 2019 MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP A Tm By: C ~ Ce Jean M. Daly ~~ 7 Christy Gargalis Attorneys for Defendant, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 2 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS WOW © ~N oO Oo A LW DN = N N N N nN nN nN nN nN -q - - - - -_ - - = - 0 ~N © Oa H N W O N = O0 0 OW 0 ~N o o 6 h h O N = O DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Defendant STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ("State Farm") hereby demurs to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as to the following two causes of action on the following grounds: Second Cause of Action Breach of Contract 1. The Second Cause of Action for Breach of Contract fails to state facts sufficient to amount to a cause of action against Defendant, State Farm. (Code Civ. Proc. §430.10 (e).) 2. The Second Cause of Action for Breach of Contract is uncertain, ambi guous and unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).) Third Cause of Action Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 3. The Third Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Fai th and Fair Dealing fails to state facts sufficient to amount to a cause of action a gainst Defendant, State Farm. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) 4. The Third Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.1 0(f).) Fourth Cause of Action Unfair Business Practices 8. The Fourth Cause of Action for Unfair Business Practices fails to state facts sufficient to amount to a cause of action against Defendant, State Farm. (Code Civ. P roc. § 430.10(e).) 6. The Fourth Cause of Action for Unfair Business Practices is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).) Sixth Cause of Action Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 7. The Sixth Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress fails to state facts sufficient to amount to a cause of action against Defendant, State Farm. (C ode 3 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS © 0 ~N oOo Oa A WO DN = N O N N N N N N D DM DN N D @& @Q a@ a =D @ a = =A o w = 0 ~N O O OO Hh W N = O O © 0 ~N Oo Oa bd W O N = OO Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) 8. The Sixth Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).) Seventh Cause of Action | Fraud 9. The Seventh Cause of Action for Fraud fails to state facts sufficient to amount to a cause of action against Defendant, State Farm. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) 10. The Seventh Cause of Action for Fraud is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).) | Eighth Cause of Action Fraud 11. The Eighth Cause of Action for Fraud fails to state facts sufficient to amount to a cause of action against Defendant, State Farm. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) 12. The Eighth Cause of Action for Fraud is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).) WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully request this Court sustain this Demurrer without leave to amend. | DATED: July 1, 2019 MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP By: - oo Christy Gargalis Attorneys for Defendant, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 4 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS © 0 N N oO a Ah O N = N O N DN DN N N BND D N D N 2 2 D2 22 2 = =a o a a = ® ~N © G T HH O N = © OW 0 N N Oo 0a » O N = O TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES... 9 l. INTRODUCTION / STATEMENT OF FACTS o.oo 9 Il. LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR DEMURRER ......coiiiiiii 9 1. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IV. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING ........ooooiiii 12 V. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES o.oo teeta eesti 14 VI. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICATION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.......coooiiii in 17 VII. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD OR CONCEALMENT eee eee eee eee e eee e eases bree tees s esses 18 VIL CONCLUSION .. ooo eee eerste sears esse essere ssbb assassins 19 DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS ......ooi s 20 5 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS © © ~N © G h D N = N N N N N N N N D R 2 2 2 2a =a a a a a a ® ~N 6 1 A O N = © © © N N o o a bh O N = O TABLE OF AUTHORITIE Page CASES Abdelhamid v. Fire Ins. Exchange (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 900 .. ieee eee 10 Ankeny v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 531 ee ees 11 Austero v. Nat. Cas. Co. (1978) 84 Cal. ApP.3d 1... 13 Award Metals, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d LB, cssscnns sews wowmmnn moms E55 S58 3 ei wos 10 Bach v. County of Butte (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d BB eee eee 11 Bentley v. Mountain (1942) 51 Cal.App.2d O08 ow 5. A 0 $s smn ws AR EEE EES 11 Berryman v. Merit Property Mgmt., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544... 16 Bower v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (2013) 196 Cal. App.4th ABB, sven sons comumenms pam wuss wos smn G58 G85 5 15 California Shoppers Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. (1981) 175 Cal.App.3d 1... 11 Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal. App.4th 1462... 16 Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal. App.4th 857 o.oo 10 Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal. App.3d 1371........ 19 Century Surety Co. v. Polisso (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 922... 13 Coleman v. Republic Indemnity Ins. Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 403................. P— 17 Cover.ant Care, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 7771 cori 16 Davaloo v. State Farm Insurance Co. (2005) 135 Cal. App.4th 409... 10 Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal. App.4th 823... 10 Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377 .......cccooviiiiiiies 15 Gilmore v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co. (1880) 55 (0: | I 2 SUPP 11 Graham v. Bank of America (2014) 226 Cal. App.4th 594... 15, 16 Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1973) 9 Cal. BA 566 oer 12 Hailey v. California Physicians’ Service (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 452..........ccooviinns ee, 18 Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299 coos 11 Hatchwell v. Blue Shield of California (1988) 198 Cal. App. 3d 1027... 12 6 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS WOW 00 ~N O O Oo A W N = N O N N N NN DN N D ND ND DN = = 2 o w a = =a a2 a a 0 ~N © OG A O N = O O © 0 ~N o o og hh WO W N N = O In re Tobacco Il Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 208... ccc 16 Ingles v. Westwood One Broad. Services, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal. App.4th 1050.................. . 15 Isaacson v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n (1988) 44 Cal.3d 775 ...........ccoccooiiiiiinnn s 17 J.B. Aguerre, Inc. v. American Guarantee & Liability Co. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th6 ........... 14 Jones v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. (1994) 26 Cal. App.4th 1717 cocoon 12 Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Caldth 1134... 15 Kwikset v. Sup. Ct. (2011) 51 Cal.dth 310.......ooiiiii es 15 Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App.4th 761... 11 Lazar v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 12 Cal.dth B31 o.oo 18 Levy v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (2007) 150 Cal. App. Ath 1 ........ sume wo sswrens mses 11 Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1136... 12,13 McClain v. Octagon Plaza, LLC (2008) 159 Cal. App.4th 784... 18 Mintz v. Blue Cross of California (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1594... 17,18 Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811... 10 Opsal v. United Services Auto. Assn. (1992) 2 Cal. App. Ath 1197 so cao sues rue mmes puuvens suns 13, 14 Otworth v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. (1985) 166 Cal. App.3d 452............c.cccovvve. 11 Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105................. 15 Reichert v. General Ins. Co. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822.................. ns sapien a SH ES GHEE 10 Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Whittaker (1968) 181 Cal.App.3d 57 JT 11 Scafidi v. Western Loan & Bldg. Co. (1946) 72 Cal. App.2d 550..........c..cooiiiininn 18 Schiauch v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 926 ............ccooeiiiiiinnn. 17 Schumm v. Berg (1951) 37 Cal.2d 174 .......cccooovvvvvvecciriiaii eee 11 Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584 .........cccoiiiiiiiii 10, 11 Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal. ApP.3d 59... 18 Tarmann v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153... 19 Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal. App.4th 1... 12 Washington v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 38 Cal. App.4th 890. ....:cu wos sues russ sms sms svn on 10 Waters v. United Services Auto Assn. (1996) 41 Cal. App.4th 1063... 12 7 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS © 0 N N oOo Oo ~~ 0 DN 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Wilson v. Hynek (2012) 207 Cal. App.4th 999... Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th T1912 eee OTHER AUTHORITIES BUS. & Prof. §17200 ooo ieee 14, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.......cc.cimiiiiniene arsine Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. .......ccoiiiiiiiii eis Code CIV. ProC. § 425.10 .....cueieeiiieiiiiiicime eres secede EVI. COE § 310 outta 8 DE=ENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS © 0 ~N o o a A O N = N O N D O N N D N D D D N D N D N = = =a 2 2 ew =a a a a ® ~ N O O O O PH W N 2 O O OW 00 N O O a h~ O W N =~ O MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES lL INTRODUCTION / STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs allege a fire started in a neighboring tenant's unit caused damage to his business premises. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against multiple defendants including the landlord who leased him the premises, neighboring tenants, his insurance carrier, and his insurance adjuster. Plaintiffs allege they leased space within an office building. (Compl., 1 4; Exh. A.) Plaintiffs allege the lease required his landlord (who was insured) to apply the insurance proceeds to abate the loss in a reasonable manner. (Compl, 11] 3-4; Exh. A.) On December 1, 2016, Plaintiffs were notified there was smoke at his office premises. (Compl., J 5.) Plaintiffs arrived and observed fire in the neighboring restaurant's unit. (Compl., 1 6.) Plaintiffs allege the premises were not properly constructed which contribu ted to his loss. (Compl., I 3.) Plaintiffs also allege the neighboring tenants contributed to the cause of the fire. (Compl., § 14.) Plaintiffs allege they were insured by State Farm under policy no. 92-BX-T474-3 which covered their property. (Compl., § 10.) Plaintiffs allege they presented a claim for damage and the claim was opened as a smoke claim. (Compl., § 10.) Plaintiffs allege S tate Farm wrongfully failed to pay all benefits due under the policy. (Compl., § 14.) Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging nine causes of action. (Compl.) Plaintiffs allege six causes of action against State Farm including breach of contract (second cause of action), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (third cause of action), violation of business and professions code section 17200 (fourth cause of action), intentional infliction of emotional distress (sixth cause of action), fraud (seventh cause of action), and concealment (eighth cause of action). IR LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR DEMURRER Defendants’ counsel met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel on June 25, 2019, by 9 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS © 00 ~N oO o oa A WO DN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 telephone and email, to discuss the issues raised in Defendant's De murrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Complaint. (Gargalis Decl., § 2.) Despite a good faith effort to resolve the issues, no resolution was reached necessitating this Demurrer. (Garga lis Decl., 12.) A demurrer is warranted if a complaint fails to state sufficient facts to sta te a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) For purposes of testing the sufficienc y of a cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pl eaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) Legal conclusions, contentions, and generic allegations are disregarde d. (Davaloo v. State Farm Insurance Co. (2005) 135 Cal. App.4th 409, 414; accord, Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126; see also Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 1 27 Cal.App.4th 823, 829 [boilerplate allegations disregarded].) A court may also sustain a d emurrer where the complaint is uncertain. (See Code Civ. Proc. §430.10(e), (f); See al so Washington v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 890, 895.) A demurrer may be sustained without leave to amend where the nature of plaintiff's claim is clear and under the applicable substantive law it is plain there can be no liability. (Award Metals, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1128, 1131-32.) ll. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the con tract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damage to plaintiff. (Reichert v. General Ins. Co. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 830; Abdelhamid v. Fire Ins. Exchange (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 990, 1000; Oasi s W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.) If Defendant negates any essentia l element of a cause of action a court should sustain the demurrer to that cause of action. (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 879.) California's pleading standard requires factual assertions be pled "with specificity" for each element of each cause of action and the absence of such factua l allegations renders a cause of action subject to demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 425.10( a)(1), 430.10(e), Bach v. 10 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTIC E OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS © 00 ~N oo a Ah O D N = N O N N N N N N M D N D N M D R N 2 2 QO 2 a2 =a a a a a ® ~ N O O O O Ah O N = © © oo ~N O o a »h~ O N =a OO County of Butte (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 554, 561; Levy v. State F arm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (2007) 150 Cal. App.4th 1, 5.) General allegations "that defendant s ‘violated’ said contracts are mere conclusions of law which cannot strengthen the plead ing in the absence of allegations of fact showing such violation." (Bentley v. Mountain (1942) 51 Cal. App.2d 95, 98. Further, "conclusory allegations . . . without facts to support them, are ambiguous” and subject to demurrer on "uncertainty" grounds. (Ankeny Vv. Lockhe ed Missiles & Space Co. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 531, 537.) In the context of an insurance policy, Plaintiff must allege facts showin g Plaintiff's claim falls within the scope of coverage. (See Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Whittaker (1968) 181 Cal.App.3d 532 [The burdens rests on the insured initially to prove that an event is a claim within the scope of the basic coverage.”]) Nothing is more importa nt in a dispute over an agreement than the terms of the contract itself. “To be enforceable, a promise must be definite enough that a court can determine the scope of the duty [,] and the limits of performance must be sufficiently defined to provide a rational basis for the assessment of damages.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 770.) Where a party relies on a contract in writing, and it affirmatively appears that all the terms in the contract are not set forth verbatim, nor stated in their legal effect, but that a portion which may be material has been omitted, the complaint is insuf ficient.” (Gilmore v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co. (1880) 55 Cal. 123, 124.) In addition to alleg ing that a party entered into and executed a contract, a party must also set out all the relevant an d material terms of the contract verbatim. (Schumm v. Berg (1951) 37 Cal.2d 174, 179 ; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 307; Otworth v. Southern Pa c. Transportation Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 458-459.) The interpretation of a contract, including an insurance policy, is an issue of law to be decided by the court. (Evid. Code § 310; see also California Shoppers Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. (1981) 175 Cal.App.3d 1, 35.) Thus, a demurrer does no t admit construction or interpretation of a contract by a pleading party. (See Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) By requiring the contract to be attached to the complaint or its terms to be pleaded, 11 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS © 0 ~N oOo a A» O D N = N O N O N R R N N DN DN D N D D N = = aS a = wa a2 a2 =a a © ~N © G i A O N = © WW 0 N N Oo 0 bh O N = O the court independently evaluates whether the contract sued upon supports Plaintiff's interpretation. Here, Plaintiffs allege in a conclusory fashion that Plaintiffs were "insured by" S tate Farm for "losses alleged herein". (Compl., 1{] 10, 27, 30.) Plaintiffs do not attach the policy or allege the specific terms of the insurance policy establishing coverage and their cause of action for breach of contract fails. Plaintiffs’ cause of action for breach of contract fails. Iv. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING It is well-settled California law that there can be no bad faith liability without an underlying breach of contract. (Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal. App.4th 1, 36: Waters v. United Services Auto Assn. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1069-107 0.) To allege a cause of action for breach of the obligation of good faith and fair dealing in an insurance contract, plaintiff must allege (1) benefits due under the policy were withhel d and (2) the benefits were withheld unreasonably or without proper cause. ( Love Vv. Fire Ins. Exchange (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1151.) If benefits are not due, a bad faith clai m may not be maintained. (/d. at 1153.) In other words, someone who is not a party to the c ontract has no standing to enforce it or to recover extra-contractual damages for the wrongful withholding of benefits to the contracting party. (Jones v. Aetna Cas. & Surety C o. (1994) 26 Cal. App.4th 1717, 1722 citing Hatchwell v. Blue Shield of California (1988) 198 Cal . App. 3d 1027, 1034.) Thus, while an action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing sounds in tort, the duty of good faith and fair dealing arises from and exists solely because of the contractual relationship between the parties. (Jones v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1717, 1722 citing Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 566, 577-578.) A cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is dependent on a breach of contract. (Love, surpa, 221 Cal.App.3d at 115 3.) Because Plaintiffs cannot state a cause of action for breach of contract, their cause of act ion for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing also fails. 12 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS © 0 ~N 6 a A W N = N O N O R N RN N N N N N 2 = 2 2 a a a a a a " D N S A B A O N A OS © © N o a bh DN = O Second, even if Plaintiffs were able to state a cause of actio n for breach of contract (which they cannot) this cause of action alone does not support a cause of action for bad faith. Instead, a cause of action for breach of the implied co venant of good faith and fair dealing "involves something beyond breach of the contractual duty itself" and requires unfair dealing rather than mistaken judgment. (Careau & Co. v. S ecurity Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1395.) If the allegation s do not go beyond the statement of a mere contract breach and, relying on the same al leged acts, simply seek the same damages or other relief already claimed in a companion cont ract cause of action, "they may be disregarded as superfluous as no additional claim is actual ly stated." (/bid.) There are at least two separate requirements to est ablish breach of the implied covenant of good faith: (1) benefits due under the policy mu st have been withheld; and (2) the reason for withholding benefits must have been unreaso nable or without proper cause.” (Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1 151.) In fact, “[t]he ultimate test of bad faith liability in the first party cases is whether refu sal to pay policy benefits was unreasonable.” (Opsal, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at 1205, citing Austero v. Nat. Cas. Co. (1978) 84 Cal. App.3d 1, 32.) To establish bad faith, Plaintiffs must plead and prove facts demonstrating that its insurance carrier acted unreasonably in denying benefits to Plaintiffs. (Century Surety Co. v. Polisso (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 922, 948-949.) An “insurer's erroneous failure to pay benefits under a policy does not necessarily constitute ba d faith entitling the insured to recover tort damage.” (Opsal v. United Services Auto . Assn. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1197,1205.) Instead, the test of bad faith liability "is whether refusal to pay policy benefits was unreasonable.” (Ibid. quoting Austero v. Nat. Cas. Co. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 1, 32) Thus, “there are at least two separate requirements to establish breach of the implied covenant: (1) benefits due under the policy must have been withheld; and (2) the reason for withholding benefits must have been unreasonable or w ithout proper cause.” (Love, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at 1151.) Here, Plaintiffs’ third cause of action the bad faith claim is f actually devoid, consisting 13 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS OW 00 ~N oO 0 Ah W N = N O N N N N D N D N = 2 a2 a2 a a aS a 2a 2 ® ~N © OG Hh O N 2 O O © © N o o a bh W N = O of exactly the same verbatim allegations in the bad faith caus e of action that are alleged in the breach of contract cause of action. (Compl., 26-55.) Pl aintiffs’ allegations are conclusory allegations that State Farm engaged in wrongfu l conduct by failing to pay benefits, withhold payments, engaging in deceptive practices, f ailing to accurately appraise and process Plaintiffs’ claims, failing to communicate, fail ing to adopt and implement standards and failing to abide by the coverage set forth in th e policy. (Compl., 11 34, 49.) Where Plaintiffs fail to allege specific acts of wrongful conduct on t he part of the insurer but instead rely on conclusory statements that an insurer acted u nreasonably a trial court properly sustains a demurrer. (J.B. Aguerre, Inc. v. Ameri can Guarantee & Liability Co. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 6, 16.) Here, Plaintiffs’ allegations do not allege anything more than an alleged breach of the contract and/or factually deficient legal co nclusions. An “insurer's erroneous failure to pay benefits under a policy doe s not necessarily constitute bad faith entitling the insured to recover tort damage.” (Opsal v. United Services Auto. Assn. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1197,1205.) Plaintiffs do not plead facts to show that State Farm's conduct was in bad faith, as opposed to (at most) an erroneous failure to pay benefits. Plaintiff's conclusory allegations are insufficient and Pla intiffs’ cause of action for bad faith fails. V. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNFA IR BUSINESS PRACTICES Plaintiffs allege all Defendants including State Farm violate d section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code, commonly referred to a s the Unfair Competition Law “UCL”. (Compl., 11 57-59.) Section 17200 defines unfair competitio n as "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." (Bus. & Prof. §17200. ) Plaintiffs’ perfunctory allegations of "unfair business practices" fa il as a matter of law. Plaintiffs’ cause of action is nothing more than a claim fo r breach of contract. But, the California Supreme Court has expressly rejected Plaintiff's ability to transform a breach of contract cause of action into a Unfair Competition Law (UCL) c laim stating: "We reaffirm that 14 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS © ©0 0 ~N o o a A W N = - o 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 an action under the UCL "is not an all-purpose substitute for a tort or contract action.” (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1150.) Yet, that is exactly what Plaintiff is attempting. Plaintiff has not alleged any new facts in this cause of action but merely restates the breach of contract allegations. (Compl., 1157-59.) Second, Plaintiffs lack standing to state a section 17200 claim. To establish st anding to bring a claim for unfair competition, Plaintiffs must "(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic i njury, and (2) show that the economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair b usiness practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.” (See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Co de § 17204, Bower v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (2013) 196 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1555 quoting Kwikse t v. Sup. Ct. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 322). Plaintiffs failed to make this necessary showin g. Plaintiffs fail to allege facts "showing a causal link between the alleged UCL violations and an injury in fact resulting in loss of money or property" and thus their cause of action fa ils. (Graham v. Bank of America (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 614.) Plaintiffs do not have stan ding to bring an unfair competition cause of action. Finally, even if Plaintiffs had standing, they fail to allege facls to establish State Farm engaged in unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices. The UCL estab lishes three theories of unfair competition premised on acts that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) Plaintiffs do not plead fac ts to state a cause of action for unfair business practices under any of the three theories. "A defen dant cannot be liable under [section] 17200 for committing "unlawful business practices’ witho ut having violated another law." (Ingles v. Westwood One Broad. Services, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1060, citation omitted.) Under the "unlawful" prong, the UCL borrows violations of other laws and makes those unlawful practices actionable; thus a violation of another law is a pre dicate for stating a cause of action under the UCL's unlawful prong. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105; see also, Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 383.) To plead a violat ion of the UCL’s 15 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS WwW © N N oOo a A W N = N O N NN N M N N D D DN D N D N 2 2 @ 2 2 =a wa 2 a 2 0 ~N OO O O A O N 2 O O © 00 N O O a ~A O N ~~ O “unlawful” prong, Plaintiffs cannot merely point to a statute and allege in conclusory fashion that Defendant's conduct violates that statute; Plaintiffs must, instead, plead facts to support the allegations that Defendant violated the statute. (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790: Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal. App.4th 1462, 1474 [disregarding facts contradicted by judicially noticed documents]; see also, Berryman v. Merit Property Mgmt., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1554 [demurrer proper where Plaintiff “failled] to plead facts to support its allegations that [Defendant] had violated” the asserted statutes]; see also Graham v. Bank of America, N.A. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 610 [affirming grant of a demurrer where there was no violation of another law”].) Here, Plaintiffs fail to allege any law violated or any factual allegations that, if true, would establish State Farm violated any statute. Similarly, the "unfair" prong requires the violation of another law as a predicate to state a cause of action. (Graham, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at 610.) The Graham Court held that an unfair business practice must be tethered to an underlying constitutional, statutory or regulatory violation. (/d. at 613-614; Wilson v. Hynek (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 999, 1008.) In order to state a claim for an "unlawful" or "unfair" violation of California's UCL, Plaintiff must plead a viable underlying statutory violation. Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to allege “unfair” or "unlawful" conduct under the UCL and Plaintiffs’ UCL claim based on the "unfair" prong fails. Finally, under the "fraud" prong, Plaintiffs must show that members of the public are likely to be "deceived" by Defendant's practices. (In re Tobacco Il Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 312; Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.) Here, Plaintiffs have not alleged the "fraud" prong at all, let alone any allegations that members of the public are likely to be deceived. (Compl. 19 57-59.) Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to allege “fraudulent” conduct under the UCL. 111 /11 111 16 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS © 00 N N oO Oa A W N = N O N DND N DN ND ND N D N D QQ @ = =m wd a a aS = = 0 ~N OO 1 A WW MN 2 O O © 0 ~N oO o Oo bo W O N = O VI. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICATION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS To state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Plaintiffs must allege (1) extreme and outrageous conduct with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. (Mintz v. Blue Cross of California (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1594, 1607-1608.) Further, the conduct alleged “must be so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible [bounds] of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” (/d. at 1608, internal quotes omitted.) California law is clear, the denial of benefits, without more, does "not state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress as a matter of law." (Mintz, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at 1608-1609.) California courts have rejected liability where the insurer simply "delayed or denied insurance benefits". (/d. at 1608.) An insurer's conduct in allegedly misleading Plaintiff regarding the statute of limitations and/or the need to obtain an attorney "did not reach the level of outrageousness necessary to support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress." (Ibid. citing Coleman v. Republic Indemnity Ins. Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 403.) An insurer's refusal to accept an injured party's settlement demand does not in itself constitute the type of "outrageous" conduct that will support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Isaacson v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n (1988) 44 Cal.3d 775, 788-789 [affirming order sustaining demurrer to intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action where insurer failed to offer sufficient benefits to claimant], Schlauch v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 926, 936 ["the failure to accept an offer of settlement ... does not in itself constitute the type of outrageous conduct which will support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress"].) An insurance carrier “does 17 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS — © 0 ~N oo oa hh Ww NWN 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 not subject itself to liability for intentional infliction of emotional dist ress by attempting in good faith to assert its perceived legal right" under a contract "even if it is likel y the subscriber will suffer emotional distress." (Mintz, supra, 172 Cal. App.4th at 1609 citing Hailey v. California Physicians’ Service (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 452, 476.) Here, Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient because they fail to p lead anything more than (at most) the denial of benefits. Further, Plaintiffs’ cause of act ion for intentional infliction of emotional distress fails because Plaintiffs do not allege facts to show State Farm engaged in conduct that could conceivably be characterized as extreme, outra geous, beyond the bouncs of decency, atrocious, or intolerable in a civilized society. VIL. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD OR CONCEALMENT To state a cause of action for fraud, Plaintiffs must plead the elements of (1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosur e); (2) knowledge of falsity (or scienter); (3) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (4) j ustifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (McClain v. Octagon Plaza, LLC (2008) 159 Cal .App.4th 784, 792.) Further, fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allega tions do not suffice. (Lazar v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645 citations omitted.) "This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which 'show how, when , where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.™ (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.) "lt is essential that the facts and circumstances which constitute the fraud should be set out clearly, concisely, and with sufficient particularity to apprise the opposite party of what he is called on to answer, and to enable the court to determine whether, on the facts pleaded, there is any foundation, prima facie at least, for the charge of fraud." (Scafidi v. Western Loan & Bldg. Co. (1946) 72 Cal.App.2d 550, 553, citation omitted.) Plaintiffs’ burden in asserting a fraud claim against a corporation is greater requiring Plaintiff to "allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, wha t they said or wrote, and when it was said or written." (Tarmann v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 18 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS © 0 ~N o o 0 A O N = N O N N N N D N M D N N D N D N 2 2 2 2 OD =a =a a2 a a ® ~N © O O A W O N = © © 0 0 N N Oo a hh O D N => O Cal.App.4th 153, 157 [sustaining demurrer to fraud causes of action when plaintiff alleged "adjustors and/or claims supervisors/managers” and "authorized agents of State Farm cloaked with such authority"] made the alleged fraudulent statements.) Plaintiffs’ allegations are devoid of facts and do not meet the requir ed level of specificity to state a cause of action for fraud or concealment against Sta te Farm and are uncertain, unintelligible, and ambiguous. Plaintiffs allege State Farm "assured Plaintiffs that the insurer would pay all covered losses and damages due under the policy." (Compl., 174.) Plaintiffs allege State Farm "failed to disclose, and thereby misrepresen ted to Plaintiffs" that State Farm "would delay, limit, reject, and fail to pay the proper va lue of Plaintiff's claims based upon discriminatory, biased and improper claims handling." (Compl. , I 74.) Plaintiffs do not allege the "how, when, where, to whom, and by what means" the alleged fraudulent representations were made. Plaintiffs simply re-alleges their insufficientl y pled breach of contract cause of action, nothing more. Viil. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ causes of action for breach of contract (second cause of action), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fa ir dealing (third cause of action), violation of business and professions code section 17200 (fourth cause of action), intentional infliction of emotional distress (sixth cause of action) , fraud (seventh cause of action), and concealment (eighth cause of action) against Defendant State Farm have been insufficiently pled. Defendant State Farm respectfully requests th at its Demurrer be sustained in its entirety, without leave to amend. DATED: July 1, 2019 MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP Sy ay ( —— Jean M. Daly Christy Gargalis Attorneys for Defendant, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 19 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS OW © N N oO Oo A W N = N O N ND NN N N N N DMD D D N 2 2 22 2 a2 2 aS a a 2 0 ~N O O O f A W N =2 O O © 00 N o o a bh WW DND N =~ Oo DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS I, Christy Gargalis, declare and state: 1. | am an attorney-at-law licensed to practice in the State of California and | am an associate with Murchison & Cumming, LLP, counsel of record herein for Defendant, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY. | am one of the attorneys at our firm responsible for handling the defense of this matter on behalf of Defendant, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and, on this basis, and upon such other bases set forth below, | have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this Declaration, except where stated on information and belief, and could and would competently testify to them under oath if called as a witness. 2. On June 25, 2019, | contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel by email to meet and confer regarding the issues raised in this Demurrer. | prepared a detailed email setting forth the legal basis for the Demurrer. Despite a good faith effort to resolve the dispute, no resolution was reached requiring State Farm to file its Demurer seeking a ruling from this Court. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 1st day of July, 2019, at Los Angeles, California. 7 i C an Cpe 5 Christy Gargalis, Declarant 20 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS © 0 ~N oO Oo A W N = N O N DN D N D N N D DN D D N = = 2 a =a =m a aA a = © ~ N O O 1 H H W N = O O WW 0 ~N o o a ~~ O N = O PROOF OF SERVICE Victor Guerra, et. al. vs. Antranik (Andy) Khachaturian, et. al. 18STCV08030 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES At the time of service, | was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. | am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 801 South Grand Avenue, Ninth Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-4613. On July 1, 2019, | served true copies of the following document(s) described as DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTIC E OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS on the interested parties in this action as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST BY MAIL: | enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collect ion and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with Mur chison & Cumming’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. | am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation d ate or postage meter date is more than one business day after the date of deposit for mailin g in this declaration. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 1, 2019, at Los Angeles, California. 21 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS OW © ~N oO a HAH L N = N O N O N NN BN ND DN D N D N 2 2A 2 a2 =a =a =a a a 0 ~N O O O O HA W N = O O © 00 ~N oO 0a bh W N = OO SERVICE LIST Victor Guerra, et. al. vs. Antranik (Andy) Khachaturian, et. al. 18STCV08030 Suzanne E. Rand-Lewis, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Gary Rand & Suzanne E. Rand-Lewis, PLC 5990 Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 630 Sherman Oaks, CA 91411-2523 Telephone: 818-779-1720 Facsimile: 818-779-1730 22 DEFENDANT, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF CHRISTY GARGALIS Court Reservation Receipt | Journal Technologies Court Portal Page 1 of 2 Journal Technologies Court Portal 5B Court Reservation Receipt Reservation Reservation ID: 415464781546 Reservation Type: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) Case Number: 185TCV08030 Filing Party: State Farm General Insuranxe Company Date/Time: December 3rd 2019, 9:15AM Fees Description First Paper Fees (Unlimited Civil) Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) TOTAL Payment Amount: $508.61 Account Number: XXXX3534 ¢ Back to Main = Print Page Status: RESERVED Number of Motions: 1 Case Title: VICTOR GUERRA, et al. vs ANTRANIK KHACHATURIAN, et al. Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 96 Confirmation Code: CR-XENYY9ZFAYLBWJ6PQ Fee Qty Amount 435.00 1 435.00 60.00 1 60.00 13.61 1 13.61 $508.61 Type: Visa Authorization: 621386 Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved. https://portal-lasc.journaltech.com/public-portal/ 2q=calendar/receipt/415464781546/118906 6/28/2019