Sui v. Price
196 Cal. App. 4th 933
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Yan Sui appeals a dismissal after the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend.
- Plaintiff’s van, registered in his wife’s name, was used from 1995 to 2003 for family transport and business deliveries.
- The van’s engine failed in 2003 and it remained in plaintiff’s exclusive parking space between units C and D, locked and unused through February 2007.
- In late 2006, the HOA, led by President Price, amended the parking rule; it allegedly allowed garage-front parking but prohibited disabled, inoperable vehicles.
- Price distributed the amended rule as approved and immediately effective, but it had not yet been recorded as required by law.
- In January 2007 Price entered plaintiff’s space and placed a warning sticker; in February 2007 a tow occurred, witnessed by relatives and neighbors; collection and credit impacts followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud claim sufficiency | Sui alleges intentional misconduct and retaliation to injure him. | Allegations are boilerplate; no concrete misrepresentation or intent shown. | Fraud claim dismissed for failure to state actionable facts. |
| Breach of contract under CC&Rs | Rule amendments and enforcement violated CC&Rs and due process. | Rules are enforceable if reasonable; towing authorized by law and practice. | Breach of contract claim dismissed; no enforceable breach shown. |
| Conspiracy to defraud | Defendants acted together to injure plaintiff. | No evidence of a concerted fraudulent scheme. | Conspiracy claim dismissed. |
| Statute of limitations / time-barred claims | Certain tort claims were timely; ongoing misconduct alleged. | Many claims time-barred or not pleaded with timeliness. | Multiple claims time-barred; remaining claims lack viable amendment opportunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries, 7 Cal.4th 926 (Cal. 1994) (accepting allegations as true for demurrer review)
- Villa de Las Palmas Homeowners Assn. v. Terifaj, 33 Cal.4th 73 (Cal. 2004) (recording requirements under Davis-Stirling Act)
- Filet Menu, Inc. v. Cheng, 71 Cal.App.4th 1276 (Cal. App. 1990s) (two standards for reviewing demurrers: de novo and amendment possibility)
- Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985) (burden to show reasonable possibility of amending to state a claim)
- Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist., 2 Cal.4th 962 (Cal. 1992) (error in sustaining demurrer when plaintiff states a possible cause of action)
- Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Service, 81 Cal.App.4th 39 (Cal. App. 2000) (burden to show state of facts to establish each element)
- E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services, 153 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Cal. App. 2007) (consider judicially noticed matters and assumed truth in demurrer review)