Christina Chen vs Debbie Law et al

Case Number

24CV01886

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 09/08/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Demurrer

Tentative Ruling

Christina Chen v. Debbie Law, et al.

Case No. 24CV01886

           

Hearing Date: September 8, 2025                                                      

HEARING:              Defendants’ Demurrer To Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Christina Chen: Russell Brown, RBX Law, PC

                                    For Defendants Richard Hille and Debbie Law: John J. Thyne III, Thyne Taylor Fox Howard, LLP

TENTATIVE RULING:

The demurrer of defendants to plaintiff’s first amended complaint is ordered off-calendar. Defendants shall, on or before October 8, 2025, file and serve their response to the verified second amended complaint filed by plaintiff on August 22, 2025. Counsel for the parties shall appear at the hearing and be prepared to discuss the matters described herein.

Background:

On April 4, 2024, plaintiff Christina Chen filed a complaint against defendants Debbie Law (Law) and Richard Hille (Hille), alleging two causes of action for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The causes of action alleged in the complaint arise from a purported refusal by Law and Hill to transfer ownership of a mobile home to plaintiff pursuant to an alleged contract between the parties.

On July 23, 2024, Hille filed an answer to the complaint and separately filed a cross-complaint (the Hille cross-complaint) against Law alleging causes of action for equitable and total indemnity, apportionment, contribution, and declaratory relief.

On August 21, 2024, Law filed an answer to and a general denial of the Hille cross-complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

On October 15, 2024, Hille filed a request for dismissal of the Hille cross-complaint, with prejudice.

On April 28, 2025, with leave pursuant to the court’s April 25, 2025, order on plaintiff’s ex parte application, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (the FAC) against Law and Hille, alleging the same two causes of action described above. As alleged in the FAC which, for present purposes, is the operative pleading:

On March 20, 2018, plaintiff entered into a contract (the contract) with Law and Hille (collectively, defendants) to purchase a mobile home (the premises) located at Ward Drive, Number 139, in Santa Barbara, California, for $455,000. (FAC, ¶ 3 & Exh. 1 [contract].) At the time the contract was made, defendants were aware that plaintiff intended to occupy the premises as her residence. (Ibid.)

The contract provided for an initial payment of $230,000, an installment note representing a first loan for $255,000 payable to defendants at an interest rate of 6 percent, and monthly payments in the amount of $1,611 for five years which were paid automatically from plaintiff’s bank account. (FAC, ¶ 4.) The installment note, which had a maturity date of May 1, 2023, stated that plaintiff had a right to prepay the balance of that note without approval or penalty. (FAC, ¶ 5.)

On March 31, 2023, plaintiff elected to pay off the installment note prior to its maturity date, and sent a cashier’s check for $192,383.08 to defendants. (FAC, ¶ 6.) On April 1, 2023, plaintiff notified Law that plaintiff was placing a stop payment of the April automatic payment because plaintiff was paying off the installment note early. (FAC, ¶ 5.) Defendants acknowledged receipt of plaintiff’s cashier’s check on April 1, 2023, the date the April payment was due. (FAC, ¶ 6.)

Defendants refused to accept plaintiff’s cashier’s check because plaintiff did not get prior approval to pay the installment note prior to maturity, and because defendants insisted on getting the remaining two months of monthly payments before defendants would sign off on the installment note and all papers necessary to transfer title to plaintiff. (FAC, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff advised Law that the terms of the installment note did not require prior approval, and demanded that defendants honor the terms of the contract. (FAC, ¶ 8.)

Law then demanded that plaintiff pay the April payment, the May payment, the amount of $1,200 for 3 hours of attorney fees paid by Law, and the amount of $80.55. (FAC, ¶ 10.) Plaintiff objected to Law’s demand and requested the name of Law’s attorney which Law refused to provide. (FAC, ¶ 11.) Law admitted that she never saw an attorney and was lying in order to get more money from plaintiff. (FAC, ¶ 12.) Defendants eventually deposited plaintiff’s cashier’s check into their account but refused to sign the necessary papers. (FAC, ¶ 13.)

After plaintiff advised Law that she would go to court to enforce the terms of the contract and installment note, Law responded in a text “ ‘If Borrower take Lender to court that means your calculation of loan balance is correct. Before the court date I can do whatever I want! Legal Owner can sit on # 139 front porch to interview Realtors or hire a Locksmith to change locks.’ ” (FAC, ¶ 14.) Law sent another text stating “ ‘I am interviewing Realtors for putting #139 to the market for sale. I will make sure the day you file the court papers is the day #139 listing is on MLS market. I will make sure a lot of Agents and the buyers come go checking out #139 new listing. Can I do that? Of course !! I am the legal owner. You are the registered owner.’ ” (FAC, ¶ 15.)

Law sent another text to plaintiff regarding plaintiff’s trip to Taiwan with her daughter, stating “ ‘Taking you to small claims court: 1- you might need to cancel or shorten the trip to Taiwan, 2- If you not show up to court, I won, will claim below: $100-court fee and mailing fee; $1611-April payment; $1611 May payment; $89.55- 5% April late fee; $80.55- 5% May late fee; Total=$3,483.10.’ ” (FAC, ¶ 17.)

On August 7, 2025, the default of defendants was entered as requested by plaintiff.

On August 15, 2025, the court entered a minute order granting defendants’ ex parte application to set aside the default entered on August 7, setting a hearing for a demurrer by defendants to the FAC on September 8, and ordering plaintiff to, on or before August 22, file any opposition to that demurrer. The court’s order on defendants’ ex parte application was signed on August 19. On the same date, defendants filed their demurrer to the FAC, which is made on the grounds that the FAC fails to allege facts which constitute a cause of action, and is uncertain.

On August 22, 2025, plaintiff filed a verified second amended complaint (the SAC).

Analysis:

“A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time ... after a demurrer ... is filed but before the demurrer ... is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer....” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).) “Because there is but one complaint in a civil action [citation], the filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint. [Citation.]” (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1131; see also People ex rel. Strathmann v. Acacia Research Corp. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 487, 506 [filing of amended complaint renders demurrer moot].)

Noted above, in its April 15, 2025, minute order, the court directed plaintiff to file any opposition to defendants’ demurrer to the FAC on or before August 22, 2025. Plaintiff filed the SAC on the date set by the court for filing that opposition. As the filing of the SAC is timely pursuant to the court’s April 15, 2025, minute order, that pleading renders the demurrer moot for all reasons further discussed above.

In addition, there is nothing in the present record to suggest, to the extent the court were to sustain the demurrer, that there exists no reasonable possibility that plaintiff can cure any defects raised in the demurrer with an amendment such as the SAC, or that a denial of leave to amend would be appropriate under the circumstances present here. (Eghtesad v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 406, 410-411.) For these and all further reasons discussed above, as the filing of the SAC moots the present demurrer, the court will order the demurrer off-calendar and require defendants to file a response to the SAC.

Further, and considering the present stage of the pleadings and the court’s ruling herein, the court will require the parties to appear at the hearing and be prepared to discuss a continued date for the trial confirmation conference presently set for September 22, 2025.