Demurrer With Motion To Strike Ccp 43010

Motion

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.May 30, 2019

D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P Electronically F 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 04/06/2020 09:45 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by A. Rios,Deputy Clerk NIV V. DAVIDOVICH, ESQ. (State Bar No. 247328) CHARLIE Z. STEIN, ESQ. (State Bar No. 265361) STEPHANIE F. DRELL, ESQ. (State Bar No. 302586) DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 Telephone: (818) 661-2420 Facsimile: (818) 301-5131 E-Mail: Niv@DavidovichLaw.com Charlie@DavidovichLaw.com Stephanie@DavidovichLaw.com Attorneys for Defendants D.D.R. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, BACHAR INVESTMENTS, LLC and 12515 SHERMAN WAY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT BURBANK COURTHOUSE LAMED ENTERPRISES, a California corporation, Plaintiff, Vv. MARBLE BROS., a California corporation; F/K/A/ FEDERAL MARBLE, INC.; 12525 SHERMAN WAY, L.P., a California limited liability partnership; JULIETTE BOUZAGLOU, an individual and as CO-TRUSTEE; REBECCA ALLEN, an individual and as CO-TRUSTEE; MONIQUE SHABTIA, an individual and as CO- TRUSTEE; D.D.R. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California limited liability company; BACHAR INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company; 12515 SHERMAN WAY; and DOES 1-100, Inclusive, Defendants. CASE NUMBER 19-BB-CV-00477 [RESERVATION ID No. 212 952 536 547] DEFENDANTS D.D.R. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, BACHAR INVESTMENTS, LLC, AND 12515 SHERMAN WAY’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF [Motion to Strike and Request for Judicial Notice filed Concurrently Herewith] DATE: May 22, 2020 TIME: 8:30 a.m. DEPT: “B” Action Filed: May 30, 2019 CMC: July 1, 2020 FSC: None Set TRIAL: None Set [Assigned to the Honorable John J. Kralik - Department “B”’] Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 22, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department “B” of the above entitled court located at 300 East Olive Avenue - Burbank, California 91502, Defendants D.D.R. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC (“D.D.R.”), BACHAR INVESTMENTS, LLC (“Bachar”) and 12515 SHERMAN WAY (“Sherman Way”) (collectively, “Defendants”), will and hereby do move this Court for an order sustaining their Demurrer to Plaintiff LAMED ENTERPRISES’, a California corporation (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint without leave to amend because there is a defect in the naming of the parties and because Plaintiff failed to state sufficient facts to support their three causes of action. This demurrer is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (d) and (e) and is based upon each and every ground therein stated in this Notice, the Demurrer, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and on the pleadings, records and files in this action, and oral and documentary evidence that may be presented at the hearing. DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP wud NIV V.DAVIDOVICH CHARLIE Z. STEIN STEPHANIE F. DRELL Attorneys for Defendants D.D.R. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, BACHAR INVESTMENTS, LLC and 12515 SHERMAN WAY DATED: April 3, 2020 -1- Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants D.D.R. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC (“D.D.R.”), BACHAR INVESTMENTS, LLC (“Bachar”) and 12515 SHERMAN WAY (“Sherman Way”) (collectively, “Defendants”), jointly and severally demur generally to Plaintiff LAMED ENTERPRISES’ (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) as follows: ENTIRE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT I. The FAC fails to state facts sufficient to state any of the causes of action alleged. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e.).) 2, The FAC is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).) FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION -- DECLARATORY RELIEF AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 3. The FAC’s First Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) 4. The FAC’s First Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).) SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE 3. The FAC’s Second Cause of Action for Breach of Written Agreement and Specific Performance fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) 6. The FAC’s Second Cause of Action for Breach of Written Agreement and Specific Performance is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).) THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - NUISANCE 7. The FAC’s Third Cause of Action for Nuisance fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(¢).) 8. The FAC’s Third Cause of Action for Nuisance is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(f).) This Demurrer is based on this notice, the pleadings, records, and files in this action; the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed herewith, and such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on this motion. 2. Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray as follows: 1. That this Demurrer be sustained without leave to amend; 2. That Defendants recover costs of suit herein incurred; 3. That Defendants recover attorneys’ fees; and, 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP wud NIV V.DAVIDOVICH CHARLIE Z. STEIN STEPHANIE F. DRELL Attorneys for Defendants D.D.R. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, BACHAR INVESTMENTS, LLC and 12515 SHERMAN WAY DATED: April 3, 2020 3. Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS IL. INTRODUCTION sxssmssnsosnsersensenssessusassonsssesnssssarsssssass ass usassssss sy ess syns eos ssass s oassasssss sass 1 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR DEMURRER.........irininninnnsiessensnesnesaessenns 2 III. THE FAC IS A SHAM PLEADING; LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE DENIED 3 IV. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED............c..... 3 V. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED............. 6 VI. PLAINTIFF’S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NUISANCE SHOULD BE DISMISSED ...uuouiiiiiinninieninsninnesaesssesssessssssessssssssssssssessassssssssssssssessssssassassssssssssasssasssanss 7 VII. 12515 SHERMAN WAY IS NOT A PROPER DEFENDANT SO THEY MUST BE DISMISSED FROM THE FAC sucussomssessosssnssssensessusmsassnssoss susosssssenssossossssssnseveasassssssassansss 9 Vl. CONCLUSION canmmmusnmmsonmmmassssssimsansssssisssssnsssssssasisea a esse aass ssvesss 10 (1) Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Banis Restaurant Design, Inc. v. Serrano (2005) 132 Cal. App.4th 1035 ....coiiiiiiiiiiieeie cece 4 Blank v. Kirwin (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311. ..ocoiiiieieieeeie eee eee e evra saree a enae eens 2,3 Blodgett v. Trumbull (1927) 83 Cal APP. 560 .....c.ooiiiiiiiieeieeieeieete ceases s ats sree e ve e e 10 C&H Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal. App.3d 1055 ..cciiiiiiiieeieeeeeee cece 3 Code of Civil Procedure SECON 3479 ......c..cceiiiiiiiiiiieieiienee eects svete eee sree seen 8 Dev. Co. v. S. Pac. Trans. Co. (1996) 44 Cal. App.4th 1160......cc.coooiiiiiiiieie eee 8 Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335 o.oo eee steerer esas sree ee 3 Green Valley Landowners Assn. v. City of Vallejo (2015) 241 Cal. App.4th 425 .....oooveiiiiiiiiiiies 6 Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299 ooo 6 Mead v. Sanwa Bank California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 561 ....c..oooiiiiiiieece eee 3 Olivier v. AT&T Wireless Services (1999) 76 Cal. App.4th 521. ..cccviiiiiiiiiiieeieieeieee cece 8 Sanai v. Saltz (2009) 170 CalAPP.Ath 746 coon 5 Spar v. Pac. Bell (1991) 235 CalLAPP.3d 1480 ....comiiiiieeiie eee eee eae sree sees 8 Tyco Industries v. Super. Ct. (1985) 164 Cal. APP.3d 148 ...eoiiiiieeeee eee eee 3 Williams v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles (2004) 121 Cal. App.4th 708.......cccevvverrennen. 3,7 Young v. Gannon (2002) 97 Cal. APP.4th 200 .......ooiiiiiieee cece eee sees eee sabes 3 STATUTES Code Civil Procedure section 430.10 .......c..coeriiriiiiiiiiiiieneceet eects eevee eae eee see seens 3 Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.300) ....cccveeeerieeiirieeeiiie eerie ee ieeereee re sees eases saree erases sere ee sere ee eens 2 (i) Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff LAMED ENTERPRISES (“Plaintiff”) is a sham pleading which attempts, but fails, to hide the glaring defects in its original complaint (“Complaint”). Plaintiff continues to abuse the powers of this Court as a means of wrongfully attempting to hold Defendants D.D.R. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC (“D.D.R.”), BACHAR INVESTMENTS, LLC (“Bachar”) and 12515 SHERMAN WAY (“Sherman Way”) (collectively, “Defendants”) responsible for complying with their alleged easement, which Defendants are not contractually bound by, and therefore fails to state any viable cause of action against Defendants. Again, Plaintiff’s causes of action arise out of a settlement agreement (“Agreement”) and its corresponding Judgment on Stipulation for Entry of Judgment by Court after Default (“Judgment”) in the certain action captioned Lainer Investments, a partnership v. Larry Schwartz, et. al., bearing Los Angeles Superior Court case number C299655 (“Case”). (FAC, q 18.) Plaintiff argues that the Agreement and Judgment granted Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest, Lainer Investments, a partnership (“Lainer”), an easement across Defendants’ properties, and said easement ran with the land, resulting in Plaintiff now holding this alleged easement. (FAC, 9 19.) However, Plaintiff fails to set forth a proper basis or sufficient facts that show that a contract exists between Lainer and Defendants or Defendants’ predecessors-in-interest or transferees (“Defendants’ Predecessors”) which granted the alleged easement to Plaintiff. Neither the Agreement nor the Judgment name Defendants or Defendants’ Predecessors, nor were the documents signed by them, and Plaintiff admitted as much in the original Complaint (See Request for Judicial Notice “RIN” Exhibit 1, § 19, filed concurrently herewith.) Yet Plaintiff has now omitted this glaring admission from the FAC with no explanation and no material amendment to this cause of action. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff cannot continue to include Defendants as parties to the Agreement and Judgment in the Complaint and then ignore that they admitted they were not parties to the Agreement in the Complaint. This is particularly the case given that in response to Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint (“First Demurrer”), the Court sustained the demurrer as to the breach of contract cause of action as to D.D.R. and advised that Plaintiff should consider “whether amendment is possible against D.D.R. as D.D.R. was not a party (nor was its Predecessor) to the settlement -1- Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 agreement and judgment’ in the underlying action. (See RJN, Exhibit 2: Minute Order.) Moreover, at the hearing on the First Demurrer, Defendant Bachar’s history of not being a party to the Agreement and Judgment (nor was its Predecessor) was also discussed and was unopposed by Plaintiff. The same reasoning, facts and law that apply to D.D.R. apply equally to Bachar, and there is no reason to treat Bachar differently. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to allege any new facts which would provide a basis for any contractual liability against Bachar. Thus, without facts to substantiate a binding contract granting an easement, Plaintiff’s allegations are entirely too uncertain, vague and ambiguous to constitute a cause of action as they fail to properly identify any sort of written agreement, stipulation or judgment whereby Defendant or Defendant’s Predecessors granted an easement to Lainer or Plaintiff. Instead, Plaintiff’s allegations in the FAC are a shameful attempt by Plaintiff to hide the irremediable defects in this FAC. Furthermore, Plaintiff has added a new cause of action for nuisance in their FAC; however, their allegations are entirely too uncertain, vague and ambiguous to constitute a cause of action as Plaintiffs actions and/or lack of action have made it abundantly clear that Plaintiff consented to Defendants’ obstruction of their use of the private alleyway, and, in turn, Defendants’ obstruction of Plaintiff’s alleged easement. Therefore, Plaintiff’s FAC falls short of proving all elements of a nuisance cause of action. Additionally, Plaintiff’s FAC again incorrectly names “12515 SHERMAN WAY” as a Defendant. Sherman Way is an address, not an entity or party to this action, and Defendants have attached the grant deed for that address (“Grant Deed”) to corroborate this fact. (See RIN, Exhibit 3.) Therefore, Defendant 12515 SHERMAN WAY must be dismissed from the complaint immediately. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR DEMURRER Code of Civil Procedure section 430.30, subdivision (a) authorizes a demurrer when any ground for objection to a complaint appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice. In determining whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action, the court may treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Blank v. Kirwin (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 319.) However, “[f]or purposes of a demurrer, we accept as true both facts alleged in the text of the complaint and facts appearing in exhibits attached to it. If the facts appearing in the attached exhibit contradict 2. Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 those expressly pleaded, those in the exhibit are given precedence. [Citation.]” (Mead v. Sanwa Bank California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 561, 567-568.) On review of a ruling on demurrer, if recitals in documents attached as exhibits are inconsistent with the allegations of the complaint, the recitals take precedence, and court disregards allegations inconsistent with the unambiguous text of the documents. (Williams v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 708, 714, fn. 6.) Doubt in the Complaint may be resolved against Plaintiff and facts not alleged are presumed not to exist. (C&H Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal. App.3d 1055, 1062.) Also, “[i]n determining whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the trial court may consider all material facts pleaded in the complaint and those arising by reasonable implication therefrom ...” (Young v. Gannon (2002) 97 Cal. App.4th 209, 220.) Code Civil Procedure section 430.10 states in pertinent part: “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object by demurrer or answer as provided in 430.30 to the pleading on one or more of the following grounds ...: (d) there is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action...” Further, Plaintiff must show there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank, supra,39 Cal.3d at p. 319.) Thus, the burden is on Plaintiffs to show in what manner the Complaint can be amended, and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) If Plaintiffs cannot do so, sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is proper. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at 319.) This is also the case where it is probable from the nature of the complaint and the previous unsuccessful attempt to plead that the plaintiff cannot state a cause of action. (Tyco Industries v. Super. Ct. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 148, 153.) III. THE FACIS A SHAM PLEADING; LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE DENIED On February 7, 2020, the Court held the hearing on Defendants’ First Demurrer based on Plaintiff’s initial Complaint filed on May 30, 2019. Among other grounds for the First Demurrer, Defendants showed that they, along with Defendants’ Predecessors, were not parties to the Agreement or Judgment which form the basis of this action and therefore they should be dismissed from this action. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Complaint acknowledged that Defendants were not parties to or successors in 3. Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 interest to the Agreement and Judgment. (See Request for Judicial Notice [“RIN], Ex. 1, q 19) This admission was uncontested by Plaintiff during the oral argument at the hearing on the First Demurrer. In amending the Complaint and filing the FAC, Plaintiff has made virtually no material changes. Rather, Plaintiff has wrongfully attempted to omit the numerous fatal pleadings and admissions made in the Complaint by deleting allegations and acknowledgements, such as the allegation that Defendants D.D.R. and Bachar are not successors in interest or parties to the Agreement and Judgment. Instead, in the FAC, Plaintiff states that “Defendants’ predecessors-in-interest are parties to and bound by the Judgment, which successors-in-interest are plaintiff and the defendants herein.” (FAC, 9 19.) Clearly, Plaintiff deleted its original allegation and acknowledgement that D.D.R. and Bachar were not parties or successors-in-interest to the Agreement and Judgment, and included this amended allegation because Plaintiff knows, and by virtue of these patent deletions admits, that this admission was fatal to their causes of action. This type of “sham pleading” is wholly improper. As stated in Banis Restaurant Design, Inc. v. Serrano (2005) 132 Cal. App.4th 1035, 1044: “A plaintiff may not avoid a demurrer by pleading facts or positions in an amended complaint that contradict the facts pleaded in the original complaint or by suppressing facts which prove the pleaded facts false. [Citations.] When a complaint contains allegations that are fatal to a cause of action, a plaintiff cannot avoid those defects simply by filing an amended complaint that omits the problematic facts or pleads facts inconsistent with those alleged earlier. [Citations.] Absent an explanation for the inconsistency, a court will read the original defect into the amended complaint, rendering it vulnerable to demurrer again.” (internal quotations omitted.) Here, Plaintiff has blatantly violated this rule by deleting the allegation that makes it clear that all of Plaintiff’s causes of action are invalid and meritless as Defendants are not contractually bound to, nor were they parties or successors-in-interest to, the Agreement and Judgment. Plaintiff has also failed to provide any explanation for the conspicuous deletions. (FAC, 9 19.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s prior allegations must be read into the FAC, subjecting all the wrongfully tampered-with causes of action to demurrer again. (Banis, supra, 132 Cal. App.4th at 1044.) Further, where a plaintiff files a sham pleading such as the FAC, the Court has discretion to and should refuse leave to amend. “The trial court has discretion to deny leave to amend when the proposed amendment omits or contradicts harmful facts pleaded in a prior pleading unless a showing is made of mistake or other sufficient excuse for changing the facts. Absent such a showing, the proposed pleading 4- Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 may be treated as a sham.” (Sanai v. Saltz (2009) 170 Cal. App.4th 746, 768-769.) Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that it has no possible means of correcting the deficiencies in its Complaint except by virtue of deleting the allegations that made it subject to demurrer in the first place. Accordingly, leave to amend should be denied. IV. PLAINTIFE’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED Plaintiff has made virtually no changes to this first cause of action for declaratory relief and injunction in its FAC, and it is still subject to demurrer for failure to state a cause of action. Once again, this allegation is entirely based on a false statement, that Plaintiff has an easement for ingress and egress across Defendants’ properties. Plaintiff cites to the Agreement and Judgment to support their allegation; however, Plaintiff previously admitted that neither Defendants nor Defendants’ Predecessors were involved in the Case that gave rise to the Agreement and Judgment and which granted the alleged easements. In fact, in the Complaint Plaintiff explicitly stated that “Defendants D.D.R. Capital Management LLC (“D.D.R.”) and Bachar Investments LLC (“Bachar”) are not successors in interest to the defendants in the Case.” (See RIN, Ex. 1, q 19.) If D.D.R. and Bachar are not successors in interest to any of the defendants in the Case, and they did not otherwise grant an easement to Plaintiff, then Plaintiff has no argument that D.D.R. and Bachar prevented the use of and/or burdened their easement because no such easement exists. (FAC, § 23.) Furthermore, Plaintiff’s sham pleading not only attempts to ignore this previous admission but bases the entire FAC upon the unexplained deletion of that admission. However, it is abundantly clear in the Agreement and Judgment as well as in Plaintiffs Complaint that no evidence exists whatsoever that binds Defendants to the terms of the Agreement and Judgment; the only material change made to the FAC was Plaintiff’s omittance of that previously acknowledged admission which was done without any explanation or proof of how and why it was retracted. Additionally, a careful review of the Agreement and Judgment shows that neither Defendants, nor Defendants’ Predecessors, are named in said Agreement and Judgment. Thus, Plaintiff’s cause of action for declaratory relief and injunction is ambiguous, vague and uncertain as Plaintiff has failed to provide facts to support the basis of their argument, that Plaintiff has an easement across Defendants’ properties. Moreover, Plaintiff’s FAC is a sham pleading which merely deleted the previously acknowledged fact that Defendants were not parties to or successors-in-interest -5- Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to the Agreement and Judgment, without providing any concrete facts or explanation for this deletion or support for their new assertion that Defendants are indeed bound by the Agreement and Judgment. Accordingly, this cause of action must be dismissed. V. PLAINTIFF'S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED Plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of written contract and specific performance is still fatally deficient on its face. While Plaintiff inexplicably removed their initial admission that all Defendants except Defendants D.D.R. and Bachar entered into the Settlement Agreement and are bound by the Judgment (See RIN, Ex. 1, 9 19), and the omission of that admission forms the basis of this cause of action, Plaintiffs FAC still falls short of proving that Defendants breached a written agreement with Plaintiff. Additionally, Plaintiff deleted that admission because Plaintiff knew the admission was fatal to this cause of action; therefore, the fact that Plaintiff’s FAC is a “sham pleading” also completely nullifies this cause of action. To prove a cause of action for breach of contract, Plaintiff must prove (1) that Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a contract; (2) that Plaintiff performed all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the contract required them to do or was excused from performance; (3) that Defendants failed to do something that the contract required them to do; (4) that Plaintiff was harmed. (Green Valley Landowners Assn. v. City of Vallejo (2015) 241 Cal. App.4th 425.) “If a breach of contract claim is based on alleged breach of a written contract, the terms must be set out verbatim in the body of the complaint, or a copy of the written agreement must be attached and incorporated by reference in order to state this cause of action.” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299, 307.) Plaintiff’s admissions in the Complaint make the breach of written agreement allegation impossible because Plaintiff failed to allege that Lainer or Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendants or Defendants’ Predecessors, or even the existence of a valid contract with Defendants or Defendants’ Predecessors that granted Plaintiff the alleged easement, or plead any facts supporting the existence of a valid written contract between Lainer and/or Plaintiff and Defendants and/or Defendants’ Predecessors, and the existence of a written contract is necessary to bring this cause of action. To the contrary, Plaintiff explicitly stated in the Complaint that the Agreement and Judgment which granted the easement were entered into by all defendants “other than defendants D.D.R. and Bachar.” (See Ex. 1, -6- Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 19.) In the FAC, Plaintiff curiously removed that admission without providing any evidence supporting their new argument that Defendants’ and/or Defendants’ Predecessors are actually bound by the Agreement and Judgment. The Agreement is still not signed by Defendants or Defendants’ Predecessors, nor are Defendants or Defendants’ Predecessors named on the Judgment. (See FAC, Ex. 2.) Plaintiff’s FAC attached the Agreement and Judgment and stated that because those documents were binding on the original parties, they are binding on their respective successors-in-interest and transferees. (FAC, 99 18, 19.) However, the existence of a valid written contract with the other defendants does not therefore prove the existence of a valid written contract with Defendants or Defendants’ Predecessors; just because Defendants’ properties share the same private alleyway as Plaintiff and the other defendants does not mean they also share the same easement. Therefore, this allegation is completely unclear, ambiguous and nonsensical. If Plaintiff could plead, in good faith, the existence of such a contract, or demonstrate its existence through attaching such contract to its FAC, then the Defendants would have no recourse but to accept Plaintiff’s assertion. However, Plaintiff and Defendants alike know that no such contractual relationship exists between them, Lainer or Defendants’ Predecessors. Furthermore, the Agreement and Judgment attached to the FAC are inconsistent with the allegations in the FAC that Defendants are bound by said Agreement and Judgment, as neither Defendants nor Defendants’ Predecessors are named on either document. When a court reviews a demurrer, the court disregards any allegations inconsistent with the unambiguous text of the documents. (Williams, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at 714, fn. 6.) Given that the unambiguous text of the Agreement and Judgment fails to name Defendants or Defendants’ Predecessors, this cause of action is automatically invalidated. Therefore, Plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of written contract and specific performance should be dismissed without leave to amend as it contains a fundamental defect that cannot be cured by amendment. VI. PLAINTIFFE’S THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NUISANCE SHOULD BE DISMISSED Plaintiff’s third cause of action for continuing nuisance is vague, ambiguous and uncertain because Plaintiff’s FAC fails to establish that Plaintiff even possesses an easement across Defendants’ 7. Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 properties, as well as meritless because if such an easement does exist, Plaintiff explicitly consented to Defendants’ use of/burdening of their alleged easement for a substantial period of time, which renders this cause of action fatally deficient on its face. Code of Civil Procedure section 3479 defines nuisance as: “Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.” To bring a cause of action for (private) nuisance, Plaintiff must prove the following: (1) Plaintiff owned/leased/occupied/controlled the property; (2) Defendant, by acting or failing to act, created a condition or permitted a condition to exist that was an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property; (3) that this condition interfered with Plaintiff’s use or enjoyment of their land; (4) that Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant’s conduct; (5) that an ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by Defendant’s conduct; (6) Plaintiff was harmed; (7) Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm; and (8) the seriousness of the harm outweighs the public benefit of Defendant’s conduct. (Olivier v. AT&T Wireless Services (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 521, 534.) To bring a cause of action for continuing (private) nuisance, Plaintiff must plead the following: (1) the nuisance or trespass is abatable, and/or (2) the damages from the nuisance or trespass may vary over time. (Spar v. Pac. Bell (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1480, 1485.) It is a maxim of jurisprudence that, “He who consents to an act is not wronged by it.” (.) “Accordingly, when it appears the defendant conducted a lawful activity on a landowner’s property with the consent of the landowner, the landowner will be precluded from pursuing a cause of action for nuisance based upon that consensual activity.” (Beck Dev. Co. v. S. Pac. Trans. Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1215.) Initially, Plaintiff has failed to make any allegations that would even support the finding of an easement. Plaintiff did not provide any documentation demonstrating that they have been granted any rights to use Defendants properties in the private alleyway for ingress and egress, nor did they provide any proof demonstrating any limitation on any acts that Defendants’ may conduct on their properties, such as constructing gates to section off their properties from others. Thus, Defendants did not interfere -8- Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 with any recognized rights possessed by Plaintiff by allegedly obstructing Plaintiff's use of their alleged easement because no such easement exists; failing to establish the existence of an easement extinguishes the entire nuisance cause of action. Additionally, Plaintiff has not provided any requests in writing whereby they asked the Defendants’ to use their alleged easement. Plaintiff makes the allegation that “within two years immediately preceding the filing of this Action, plaintiff’s representatives warned defendants of their improper conduct that obstructs, burdens and surcharges the Easements and blocks the unimpeded use of and access through the easement area and the public alley. Such notices have been ignored and the interference, improper obstructions and surcharging continues unabated.” (FAC, 9 42.) However, this allegation is inadequate and flawed as Plaintiff has not provided any information on who spoke with which Defendant, when and where the conversation(s) transpired, or how each Defendant responded. In fact, there are no records whatsoever that prove that Plaintiff spoke with any of the Defendants’ and gave them any notice concerning the use of Plaintiff’s alleged easement. Thus, Plaintiff’s unsupported allegation in the FAC falls short of demonstrating that Plaintiff put Defendants’ “on notice” that Defendants’ were creating a nuisance by interfering and obstructing their alleged easement. Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to address why they created a parking spot on their portion of their alleyway if they were trying to use the alleyway for ingress and egress. Instead that action shows that Plaintiff’s clearly and openly consented to that Defendant’s erection of a gate to separate the two properties in the alleyway, and that consent bars relief of seeking to have those obstructions in the alleyway removed. Moreover, Plaintiff has also failed to allege any special injury due to Defendants’ alleged obstruction of their easement. Plaintiff’s third cause of action for continuing nuisance is flawed on its face and the court should dismiss it without leave to amend as it contains a fundamental defect that cannot be cured by amendment. VII. 12515 SHERMAN WAY IS NOT A PROPER DEFENDANT SO THEY MUST BE DISMISSED FROM THE FAC In order to state a claim in a complaint, the Plaintiff must identify each specific party they are making allegations against. Plaintiff has again named 12515 SHERMAN WAY (“Sherman Way”) as a Defendant in this FAC; however, Sherman Way is an address, not an entity, and a cause of action cannot 9. Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 be filed against an address. A demurrer for misjoinder of parties merely stating that demurrant was improperly joined with the other defendants is sufficient. (Blodgett v. Trumbull (1927) 83 Cal. App. 566.) Plaintiff made this same error in their Complaint, yet they provided no further evidence or information in the FAC to prove that 12515 Sherman Way is actually an entity, not an address. In ruling on the First Demurrer, the Court overruled on this basis as to 12515 Sherman Way, but respectfully, this was apparently due to an error in reviewing the Complaint. The Complaint, like the FAC, admits that “D.D.R. owns that certain real property commonly known as 12517 and 12515 Sherman Way[.]” (FAC, 99 5, 16.) The entity 12515 Sherman Way is never mentioned anywhere else in the FAC. In the Court’s order on the First Demurrer, the Court ruled: “Defendants argue that 12515 Sherman Way is an address and is not an entity, and thus Plaintiff incorrectly named it as a defendant. (Dem. at p. 5.) However, the complaint names 12515 Sherman Way, L.P., as a defendant. According to the Complaint, 12525 Sherman Way, L.P. is a limited partnership that owns real property located at 12525 Sherman Way in North Hollywood. (Complaint, q 3.) Thus, the complaint is not asserted against a street, but against a limited partnership. As such, Sherman Way’s demurrer on this basis is overruled.” (RIN, Ex. 2 at 3:15-20; emphasis added.) The Court seems to have inadvertently confused the alleged “entity” 12515 Sherman Way (an address, not an entity) and the defendant named as 12525 Sherman Way, L.P., the alleged owner of 12525 Sherman Way, who is not a related party to these demurring Defendants. (FAC, 9 4.) Contrary to the Court’s order, there is no allegation, either in the Complaint or the FAC, against any entity named “12515 Sherman Way, L.P.” and, in fact, no such entity exists. Given that this error is made (again) on the face of the FAC, as a matter of law, this “address” must be dismissed from the herein action. VIII. CONCLUSION Defendants respectfully request that the court sustain their Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP oh Dual “10- DATED: April 3, 2020 Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NIV V.DAVIDOVICH CHARLIE Z. STEIN STEPHANIE F. DRELL Attorneys for Defendants D.D.R. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, BACHAR INVESTMENTS, LLC and 12515 SHERMAN WAY -11- Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE - 1013A(3], 2015.5 C.C.P. Lamed Enterprises. v. Marble Bros., et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court - North Central District - Burbank Courthouse - Case No. 19-BB-CV-00477 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action; my business address is: DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GRouP LLP - 6442 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 - North Hollywood, California 91606. On April 3, 2020, I served, in the manner indicated below, the foregoing document described as DEFENDANTS D.D.R. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, BACHAR INVESTMENTS, LLC, AND 12515 SHERMAN WAY’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the interested parties in this action as follows: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST [J | VIA PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the above address(es) listed on this page or the attached service list. VIA UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE: By placing a copy thereof for delivery in a separate envelope addressed to each addressee, respectively as follows: VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL (Code of Civil Procedure §§1013 and 1013(a)) [] ViA EXPRESS MAIL, FEDERAL EXPRESS OR OTHER OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE (Code of Civil Procedure §§1013(c) and (d)) [] VIA CERTIFIED MAIL (Code of Civil Procedure §§1013 and 1013(a)) [1 | VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE: By placing a copy thereof for delivery in a separate envelope addressed to each addressee, respectively as follows: [J VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS (Code of Civil Procedure §§1013(c) and (d)) [] VIA UNITED PARCEL SERVICE (Code of Civil Procedure §§1013(c) and (d)) [J | VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION: (Code of Civil Procedure §§1013(e) and (f)): from facsimile number: 818.301.5131 to the facsimile number(s) listed on the attached service list. -12- Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The facsimile machine I used complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.306 and no error was reported by the machine. [1 | COURTESY COPY VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused the Document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed on the attached service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. My electronic service address is: Casandra@DavidovichLaw.com. [1 | VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Complying with an agreement with all parties, 1 caused the Document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed on the attached service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. My electronic service address is: Casandra@DavidovichLaw.com. A copy of the sent e-mail will be maintained with the original document(s) in our office. (Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251.) VIA ELECTRONIC FILING SERVICE: Complying with Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6, my electronic business address is: Casandra@DavidovichLaw.com and I caused such document(s) to be electronically served through the Janney & Janney system for the above- entitled case to those parties on the attached Service List maintained on its website for this case. The file transmission was reported as complete and a copy of the Filing/Service Receipt will be maintained with the original document(s) in our office. [J | VIA SHAREFILE: Complying with Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6(a)(1)(c), I caused an electronic notice to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed on the attached Service List. This notice contained a secure link that permits the person(s) individual access to download the above-listed document(s). Notification is provided via counsel’s secure ShareFile system’s administrative e-mail account, . A copy of the sent e-mail will be maintained with the document(s) in our office. (Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251.) I did not receive, within a reasonable time after transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. This link will expire after 60 days and access will no longer be permitted to the document(s). Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6(a)(2), the party(ies) have agreed to receive electronic service via this method. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on April 3, 2020, in North Hollywood, California. CASANDRA J. BROOME -13- Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 D A V I D O V I C H S T E I N L A W G R O U P LL P 6 4 4 2 C o l d w a t e r C a n y o n A v e n u e , Su it e 2 0 9 No rt h Ho ll yw oo d, Ca li fo rn ia 9 1 6 0 6 [8 18 ] 66 1- 24 20 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE - SERVICE LIST Lamed Enterprises. v. Marble Bros., et al. Los Angeles County Superior Court - North Central District - Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Case No. 19-BB-CV-00477 Philip A. Metson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP A. METSON 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 551-0296 Facsimile: (310) 551-0837 E-Mail(s): albap5S@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff LAMED ENTERPRISES -14- Lamed Enterprises v Marble Bros., etc., et al. DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT LASC - North Central District - Case Number 19-BB-CV-00477 Journal Technologies Court Portal Make a Reservation LAMED ENTERPRISES vs MARBLE BROS, et al. Case Number: 19BBCV00477 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) Date Filed: 2019-05-30 Location: Burbank Courthouse - Department B Reservation Case Name: LAMED ENTERPRISES vs MARBLE BROS, et al. Type: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) Filing Party: Bachar Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company (Defendant) Date/Time: 05/22/2020 8:30 AM Reservation ID: 212952536547 Fees Description Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) TOTAL Payment Amount: $123.30 Account Number: XXXX5679 24 Print Receipt | = Reserve Another Hearing Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved. Case Number: 19BBCV00477 Status: RESERVED Location: Burbank Courthouse - Department B Number of Motions: 1 Confirmation Code: CR-H86NOMQK7IRGPZ47N Fee Qty 120.00 1 3.30 1 Type: Visa Authorization: 48706G Amount 120.00 3.30 $123.30