Moving Party: Defendant Dr. Farhad Contractor
Responding Party: Plaintiff Paul Randall
Defendant Dr. Farhad Contractor’s (“Defendant”) demurrer to Plaintiff Paul Randall’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
Plaintiff’s form complaint states at paragraph 8 that the following causes of action are attached:
- Breach of contract;
- Common counts; and
- Breach of trust.
However, the only cause of action forms attached to Plaintiff’s complaint are for common counts (identified as the second cause of action) and intentional tort (identified as the third cause of action).
“The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff.” (Coles v. Glaser (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 384, 391, internal punctuation omitted.)
“The essential allegations of a common count ‘are (1) the statement of indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration, i.e., goods sold, work done, etc., and (3) nonpayment.’” (Allen v. Powell (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 502, 510.)
Plaintiff has not pled facts sufficient to support any of the alleged causes of action against the moving Defendant. At paragraph 9, Plaintiff describes an agreement with “Defendant” involving payment of a debt, but Plaintiff does not specify which of the seven Defendants were parties to the agreement. In the third cause of action for intentional tort, Plaintiff describes an agreement with Defendant Farzine Morena, but Plaintiff does not identify any contract with the moving Defendant. While there is a reference to Defendant Farzine Morena “having disbursed the trust funds to his family and businesses (the other named defendants)”, the mere allegation that funds were disbursed to unspecified “family and businesses” is insufficient to support Plaintiff’s causes of action against moving Defendant.
Therefore, Defendant Farhad Contract’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is sustained with leave to amend.