STEPHEN SIEGEL VS Low VOLTAGE ARCHITECTURE INC

Scenario Variety: BC502421    Hearing Day: July 15, 2014    Dept: 56

Case Name: Siegel v. Low Voltage Architecture, Inc., et al.
Case No.: BC502421
Issue: Demurrer to Amended Cross-Criticism

Tentative Ruling: Demurrer is overruled.

Plaintiff Stephen Siegel filed this motion towards Defendants Low Voltage Architecture Inc. and Matthew and Virginia Denos, arising out of the set up of audio, online video, lights, and protection at Plaintiff’s residence. Reduced Voltage submitted a cross-criticism, with the two/four/fourteen Very first Amended Cross-Grievance as the operative pleading. The FACC asserts leads to of motion for breach of contract, common counts, and fraud. Plaintiff demurs to the FACC.

Uncertainty –
Plaintiff argues that the entire FACC is unsure. “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even exactly where a criticism is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under present day discovery processes.” Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.Application.4th 612, 616. The allegations of the FACC are not uncertain, and this ground is overruled.

Statute of Restrictions –

Plaintiff argues that the FACC is barred by the statute of limits, noting that Minimal Voltage has transformed the dates of the agreement and widespread count claims. The change in the date of the contract conforms to the very same allegations in Plaintiff’s own Criticism. The day of breach in the FACC is the very same as the unique Cross-Complaint. And the allegations about a composed agreement conform to Plaintiff’s personal Criticism and the original Cross-Grievance (which alleged oral and created invoices).

Plaintiff fails to establish that the two-yr statute of restrictions for an oral agreement applies (CCP §339(one)), and Plaintiff fails to tackle the three-year statute of limitations for the fraud claim (CCP § 338(d)). This ground is overruled.

Breach of Deal –
Plaintiff argues that the FACC fails to connect the composed agreement or allege the substance of the pertinent conditions and fails to allege information constituting a breach. This argument has no advantage. Low Voltage alleges that it entered into an settlement with Plaintiff for AV installation and that Plaintiff prevented Low Voltage from completing the set up and failed to pay out. This floor is overruled.

Plaintiff also problems the frequent counts assert. Low Voltage is entitled to plead both an specific agreement and commons rely declare on the identical transaction. And since the breach of deal assert is adequately pled, the frequent counts claim is adequate. See Wm. E. Doud &amp Co. v. Smith (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 552, 559. This floor is overruled.

Fraud –
Plaintiff argues that the FACC fails to allege details with particularity as to fraud. The FACC alleges that on eleven/2/11, Plaintiff represented that if Minimal Voltage agreed to complete the AV set up for a discounted value, Low Voltage would obtain added operate and publicity these statements have been manufactured by Plaintiff to Matthew Denos and Luis Zepeda and that Plaintiff did not perform his claims and never ever supposed to do so. At the pleading stage, this is ample and this ground is overruled.

Ruling –
The demurrer to the FACC is overruled, and Plaintiff shall solution inside 10 days.

Duplicate the code below to your net internet site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *