Breach of Bailment in California

James Lin and Reproductive Fertility Clinic) to the Second Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Third Cause of Action for Conversion and the Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Bailment Contract is sustained with 20 days’ leave to amend.

Second Cause of Action Breach of Bailment i. Statute of Limitations Defendant contends that this claim fails because Plaintiffs improperly rename a professional negligence claim to a breach of bailment claim. Plaintiffs refer to their argument in the first cause of action. The statute of limitations period for breach of bailment is three years. (CCP § 338; see H. Russell Taylors Fire Prevention Service, Inc. v. Coca Cola Bottling Corp.

Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on May 25, 2021, alleging three causes of action: (1) conversion; (2) common count; and (3) breach of bailment agreement. PRESENTATION: Defendant demurred on August 4, 2021. Plaintiff opposed on September 8, 2021. There is no filed reply. RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendant demurs to the entire complaint on the grounds of uncertainty and insufficient facts.

Breach of Oral Contract & Breach of Bailment The elements of a breach of contract claim are (1) the existence of a contract, (2) breach of the contract’s terms, and (3) resulting damage. (Tribeca Companies, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Co. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1109.) The elements of breach of bailment are substantially similar.

This breach of bailment claim is based on the delivery of the horse resulting from the written Lease Agreement. Plaintiffs have not presented evidence to raise a triable issue of material fact that Far West Farms is a party to the Lease Agreement, which would give rise to express or implied contractual promises made to Plaintiffs that would support the breach of bailment claim. The Court GRANTS Far West Farms’ motion for summary adjudication as to the breach of bailment claim. 5. Claim for Damages i.

Breach of Oral Contract & Breach of Bailment The elements of a breach of contract claim are (1) the existence of a contract, (2) breach of the contract’s terms, and (3) resulting damage. (Tribeca Companies, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Co. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1109.) The elements of breach of bailment are substantially similar.

Second Cause of Action: Breach of Bailment Defendants’ demurrer is sustained with 15 days leave to amend. Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege facts support the existence of any bailment. (CCP § 430.10(e); H. S. Crocker Co. v. McFaddin (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 639, 643.) In fact, the complaint alleges Plaintiff did not sign any contract. (FAC ¶ 21.) Third Cause of Action: Trespass to Chattel Defendants’ demurrer is overruled. The complaint adequately pleads a claim for trespass to chattel.

Cause of Action for Breach of Bailment Plaintiff alleges that moving Defendants took possession of her Karastan 717 area rug for cleaning and failed to return it or reimburse her for its cost. (FAC, p. 4.)

Breach of Bailment 11. Conversion 12. Negligence 13. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress A Case Management Conference is set for March 8, 2023. Discussion Defendants demur to the first through thirteenth causes of action in Plaintiffs complaint, on the basis that they each fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendants also move to strike out punitive damages from Plaintiffs complaint.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for breach of contract, breach of bailment, fraud and embezzlement. REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Order Plaintiff to serve responses to discovery requests and deem requests for admission admitted. OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 22, 2019. ANALYSIS: On October 29, 2018, Defendants Coit Services CV, Inc., Coit Services, Inc., and Robert L.

They note that the Complaint alleges only three causes of action against all defendants: (1) negligence; (2) trespass to chattel; and (3) negligent breach of bailment. (See Motion, p. 1:26-27.) The three more serious causes of action — intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and misrepresentation — are alleged only against defendants Bandele and LA Central Animal Hospital. (See Id. at p. 1:28-2:2.)

.: C/A 1: Non-Delivery of Cargo C/A 2: Negligence/Willful Misconduct C/A 3: Breach of Bailment C/A 4: Breach of Written Broker-Carrier Contract C/A 5: Breach of Bill of Lading Plaintiff insured cargo against risk of loss and paid for that loss. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants received cargo of assorted footwear to be delivered from California to Indiana, but neglected to do so such that the cargo was never delivered.

Such facts plainly could be alleged as they are within Plaintiffs’ knowledge, and would demonstrate Rawlings’ standing to sue for breach of bailment despite not directly contracting with Wag. The Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

On February 4, 2019, Plaintiffs Krista Lynn Taylor and Roderick Taylor filed the first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Lisa Hankin for (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence; and (3) breach of bailment. Plaintiffs allege that they were the owners of a show horse named Bravado and entered into a written lease agreement with Defendant whereby Bravado was leased to Defendant for the term of one year. (FAC, ¶¶ 9-10.)

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts Causes of Action alleging: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Common Counts; (3) Fraud [also titled “Intentional Misrepresentation” in body of Complaint]; (4) Breach of Bailment; (5) Negligence Contract; and (6) Embezzlement/Conversion of Personal Property Plaintiff alleges Causes of Action 1-3 against Defendant Oregon Trail Corporation. Defendant demurs to each of them.

Breach of Contract and Breach of Bailment Defendants contend both the breach of contract and breach of bailment causes of action fail because plaintiffs did not attach a copy of the alleged contract or recite its pertinent terms. "[F]ailure either to attach or to set out verbatim the terms of the contract was not fatal to [a] breach of contract cause of action" as long as the essential terms or legal effect are pled. Miles v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 394, 402.

It does not appear that the lack of a writing bars the breach of bailment claim, and the demurrer is overruled on this ground as well. Defendant also argues that the cause of action for IIED fails to sufficiently allege extreme and outrageous conduct, or that plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.

Again, even if Plaintiff is assumed to have met his initial burden, the declaration of Defense Counsel Buchanan and the attached exhibits also raises a triable issue as to the Breach of Bailment claim as it suggests that any duty Defendant owed Plaintiff may have ceased as early as mid-2016 when Plaintiff failed to appear for appointments to pick up his property.

On February 4, 2019, Plaintiffs Krista Lynn Taylor and Roderick Taylor filed the first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Lisa Hankin for (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence; and (3) breach of bailment. Plaintiffs allege that they were the owners of a show horse named Bravado and entered into a written lease agreement with Defendant whereby Bravado was leased to Defendant for the term of one year. (FAC, ¶¶ 9-10.)

The complaint asserted causes of action for: (1) breach of settlement agreement; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) conversion; (4) negligence; (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (6) breach of bailment. The case was filed in the West District, Santa Monica Courthouse. On September 28, 2018, Defendant Wendy Joy Carter filed a motion to transfer action to probate court in Department O of the Santa Monica Courthouse.

California Courts have applied the rule in Conversion claims, that a demand is unnecessary where the acts of the defendant show a conversion or where, under the facts, a demand would be futile, to Breach of Bailment claims. (Downey v. Martin Aircraft Service, Inc. (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 94, 100.) On its face, it appears that a claim for Breach of Bailment exists. Accordingly, the Demurer for the Fourth Cause of Action (Breach of Bailment) is OVERRULED.

MEI's demurrer to the FAC's cause of action for breach of bailment is therefore SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, and the demurrer to the FAC's cause of action for breach of duty of due care by a bailee is OVERRULED. 5.

Fifth Cause of Action for Negligence and Eighth Cause of Action for Breach of Bailment Defendants argue that Plaintiffs plead insufficient facts to state a cause of action for negligence. While Defendants correctly state that Plaintiffs negligence claim is one for veterinary malpractice, Defendants incorrectly conclude that they did not owe a duty to Plaintiffs. Defendants cite to McMahon v.

Courts Determination The eighth cause of action for breach of bailment relies on the same factual ground for liability as the seventh cause of action: harm to Plaintiff as a result of Brinks permitting Newlands coins to be removed from Brinks secure vault facility. (Compare SAC, ¶ 100, with SAC, ¶ 94.)

of Bailment against Brinks and Does 2-10.

On February 4, 2019, Plaintiffs Krista Lynn Taylor and Roderick Taylor filed the first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Lisa Hankin for (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence; and (3) breach of bailment. Plaintiffs allege that they were the owners of a show horse named Bravado and entered into a written lease agreement with Defendant whereby Bravado was leased to Defendant for the term of one year. (FAC, ¶¶ 9-10.)

(Decl. of Lewis ¶10.) [3] Plaintiff asserts the amendment is necessary as to permit Plaintiff to assert a new cause of action based on Defendants May 3, 2023, admission in a discovery response that Defendant was a bailee, giving rise to the proposed claim for breach of bailment and liability pertaining thereto. (Decl. of Lewis ¶3, Exh. 3 at RFA No. 21.)

Second Cause of Action: Breach of Bailment Defendants’ demurrer is sustained with 10 days’ leave to amend. Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege facts to support the existence of any bailment. (C.C.P. §430.10(e); H. S. Crocker Co. v. McFaddin (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 639, 647.) The complaint is also ambiguous and uncertain (C.C.P. § 430.10(f)); the complaint is unclear what personal property was wrongfully withheld, or by which defendant.

(UCL); (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (6) Fraudulent Concealment; (7) Breach of Bailment; (8) Negligence; (9) Intentional Misrepresentation; and (10) Negligent Misrepresentation. On May 18, 2022, COC Defendants filed this instant Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. On June 01, 2022, MAH Defendants filed an Opposition to the Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.

On February 4, 2019, Plaintiffs Krista Lynn Taylor and Roderick Taylor filed the first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Lisa Hankin for (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence; and (3) breach of bailment. Plaintiffs allege that they were the owners of a show horse named Bravado and entered into a written lease agreement with Defendant whereby Bravado was leased to Defendant for the term of one year. (FAC, ¶¶ 9-10.)

The third cause of action for breach of bailment contract alleges a bailment contract was created between Plaintiff and the three Defendants under the PSA. (FAC ¶ 34.) The fourth cause of action alleges promissory estoppel against Defendants, stating “The parties entered into the PSA” and “Defendants breached their promises.” (FAC ¶¶ 42-43.) The FAC is unclear about the terms of the alleged written agreement. Plaintiff does not clearly identify the document or documents constituting the written agreement.

Ninth Cause of Action for Breach of Bailment To plead a cause of action for breach of bailment, the plaintiff must allege a delivery of a thing to another in trust for some special object or purpose, under a contract, express or implied, to conform to the object or purpose of the delivery or trust, which may be as varied as people's transactions. (9 Cal. Jur. 3d Bailments § 1) [internal citations omitted].

Therefore, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint adding two causes of action for (1) negligent spoliation and (2) breach of bailment against attorney Shalem Shem-Tov and his law firm based on their alleged failure to safeguard the phone. (See Mateescu Decl., Exh. B.) Technically speaking, this is not a valid motion to amend the complaint.

(UCL); (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (6) Fraudulent Concealment; (7) Breach of Bailment; (8) Negligence; (9) Intentional Misrepresentation; and (10) Negligent Misrepresentation. On May 12, 2022, MAH Defendants filed a Demurrer with Motion to Strike.

On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff Falcon Beverly Hills, LLC filed a complaint against Defendants Albert Widjaya Pranoto (Pranoto), ZG Valet, and Does 1 to 100 for (1) civil damages for theft (Penal Code § 496(c)), (2) conversion, (3) breach of bailment, and (4) negligence. On May 9, 2022, Defendant Pranoto filed a demurrer to complaint. Plaintiff filed an opposition on June 8, 2022. Defendant Pranoto filed a reply on June 14, 2022.

On 08/10/18, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) trespass to chattel; (3) negligent breach of bailment; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) fraud; (6) misrepresentation; and (7) deceptive practices. ANALYSIS: Defendants Young Joo Kim, DVM and Central Orange County Emergency Animal Hospital seek a determination that the settlement between them and plaintiffs was made in good faith. (Notice of Motion, p. 2:2-7.)

The Complaint alleges the same five causes of action as in the Alameda Action, as well as breach of bailment and conversion. It also attaches the Storage Agreements as the basis for the suit. Relevant to the instant motion, the Complaint does not provide any facts indicating where Defendants’ primary place of business are located.

A breach of bailment occurs when the party having custody either refuses to return the property or there is damage to it. Here, Cannon was returned, but was injured. The failure to keep Cannon safe is allegedly a negligent breach of the bailment. Defendants contend that they were not negligent because the fire was caused by arson. But, as plaintiff correctly points out, this is a pleading motion.

Plaintiffs bring causes of action against Defendant for (1) negligence, (2) breach of bailment, (3) trespass to chattel, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant now moves to strike portions of Plaintiffs Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Motion to Strike is GRANTED. No leave to amend is to be granted at this time.

Breach of Bailment 7. Breach of Warranty DHE expressly requests that its demurrer be sustained with leave to amend to state a claim under the Carmack Amendment. ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff’s owner, Josiah Lilly, traveled to Brazil to locate and purchase “exotic and irreplaceable granite slabs.” His purchases were shipped to the Hanjin Terminal in Long Beach. The granite slabs were packed into three shipping containers.

Yank (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 544, 554 (plaintiff properly pled alternative theories of recovery for breach of bailment contract and negligence, two causes of action with differing burdens of proof). Demurrer to the 2 nd cause of action for breach of contract is OVERRULED. III. 3 rd cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty OVERRULED Plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim is properly based on breach of the duty to use reasonable care.

Plaintiff Gavrielli Brands, LLC moves for leave to amend to file a first amended complaint in order to add a new cause of action for Breach of Bailment, additional facts in support of the existing claims, and removal of the request for possession of wrongfully withheld property from the prayer for relief. The motion comes following Plaintiff regaining possession of its property and the discovery of extensive damage, due to improper storage and handling. Plaintiff submitted a notice of non-opposition/reply.

The operative first amended complaint, filed August 10, 2018, asserts causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Trespass to Chattel; (3) Negligent Breach of Bailment; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Fraud; (6) Misrepresentation; and (7) Deceptive Practices (Civ. Code § 1770). This action arises out of injuries sustained by Plaintiffs’ dog, Laika, and allegedly exacerbated by Defendants’ failure to provide adequate veterinary care. On September 04, 2017, Laika was hit by a car.

Yank (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 544, 554 (plaintiff properly pled alternative theories of recovery for breach of bailment contract and negligence, two causes of action with differing burdens of proof).) Accordingly, the demurrer to the eighth and ninth causes of action if overruled. Motion to Strike Consequential Damages and Lost Profits.

Plaintiffs’ breach of contract, negligence, and breach of bailment claims in the FAC all stem from the lease agreement that was entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant. The lease agreement provides for the recovery of attorney’s fees, but the attorney fee provision only names Plaintiff, the lessor, as the party who can recover attorney’s fees. (Wallace Decl., Ex. 1, ¶ 13.)

The operative first amended complaint, filed August 10, 2018, asserts causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Trespass to Chattel; (3) Negligent Breach of Bailment; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Fraud; (6) Misrepresentation; and (7) Deceptive Practices (Civ. Code § 1770). This action arises out of injuries sustained by Plaintiffs’ dog, Laika, and allegedly exacerbated by Defendants’ failure to provide adequate veterinary care. On September 04, 2017, Laika was hit by a car.

Negligent Breach of Bailment “In an action for breach of a bailment contract, the bailor must prove that the agreement is a bailment contract, the property was deposited with the bailee, a demand was made for the property, and the bailee failed to return the property.” (Needelman v. DeWolf Realty Co., Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 750, 762.) Here, Plaintiffs have not alleged that they demanded a return of their property, and Defendants failed to return the property.

After the hearing on the matter the Court issued the following order: Defendants Ayman Shawky Ibrahim, DVM; Andrew Said, DVM; and Mission Animal Hospital, Inc.s Demurrer is OVERRULED as to the Ninth Cause of Action (Breach of Bailment).

The operative first amended complaint, filed August 10, 2018, asserts causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Trespass to Chattel; (3) Negligent Breach of Bailment; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Fraud; (6) Misrepresentation; and (7) Deceptive Practices (Civ. Code § 1770). This action arises out of injuries sustained by Plaintiffs’ dog, Laika, and allegedly exacerbated by Defendants’ failure to provide adequate veterinary care. On September 04, 2017, Laika was hit by a car.

The operative first amended complaint, filed August 10, 2018, asserts causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Trespass to Chattel; (3) Negligent Breach of Bailment; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Fraud; (6) Misrepresentation; and (7) Deceptive Practices (Civ. Code § 1770). This action arises out of injuries sustained by Plaintiffs’ dog, Laika, and allegedly exacerbated by Defendants’ failure to provide adequate veterinary care. On September 04, 2017, Laika was hit by a car.

MOTION Plaintiff filed a verified complaint in this action asserting claims for conversion and breach of bailment arising from the alleged theft of the pet on April 17, 2020.

Third Cause of Action: Breach of Bailment Defendant demurs to this cause of action for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendant contends, and Plaintiff agrees, that this cause of action rests on the same basis as Plaintiffs implied breach of contract claim. As the Court has sustained the demurrer to the implied breach of contract claim, this cause of action likewise fails.

Third Cause of Action (Breach of Bailment Contract) Defendants challenge the third cause of action because Officer Hall never took possession of anything belonging to plaintiff. A breach of a bailment contract requires the defendant to have taken possession of the property at issue. Here, there is no evidence that defendants ever had the property plaintiff claims was stolen.

On February 4, 2019, Plaintiffs Krista Lynn Taylor and Roderick Taylor filed the first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Lisa Hankin for (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence; and (3) breach of bailment. Plaintiffs allege that they were the owners of a show horse named Bravado and entered into a written lease agreement with Defendant whereby Bravado was leased to Defendant for the term of one year. (FAC, ¶¶ 9-10.)

The operative first amended complaint, filed August 10, 2018, asserts causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Trespass to Chattel; (3) Negligent Breach of Bailment; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Fraud; (6) Misrepresentation; and (7) Deceptive Practices (Civ. Code § 1770). This action arises out of injuries sustained by Plaintiffs’ dog, Laika, and allegedly exacerbated by Defendants’ failure to provide adequate veterinary care. On September 04, 2017, Laika was hit by a car.

On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed her complaint for (1) Conversion; (2) Fraud And Deceit; (3) Unlawful, Fraudulent, And Unfair Business Practices; (4) Breach Of Bailment; (5) Breach Of Contract; (6) Breach Of Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing. (7) Waste; (8) Declaratory Relief; (9) Injunctive Relief (10) Preliminary Injunction. On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case (21STPB11223).

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants New Leash on Life Rescue Foundation and Sean Tanner OPPOSTION: Plaintiff David Lawrence and Allen Schmitt On May 25, 2017, plaintiffs filed a complaint for, (1) conversion, (2) trespass to chattel, (3) breach of contract, (4) unfair business practices, (5) breach of bailment, (6) negligence per se (Civil Code section 1834), (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (8) negligence - individual, and (9) exemplary damages (Civil Code sections 3340 and 3294.).

The operative pleading is the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleging six (6) causes of action for: (1) Breach of Oral and Implied Contract, (2) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Fraudulent Concealment; (4) Breach of Bailment; (5) Conversion; and (6) Negligence. Defendants filed a Demurrer with Motion to Strike to the First Amended Complaint on July 26, 2022. Subsequently, on August 25, 2022, both the Demurrer and Motion to Strike were granted and denied in part.

The Court therein held (citations omitted): Plaintiffs' common law causes of action were for unjust enrichment, breach of bailment agreement and conversion. There is no cause of action for unjust enrichment. Rather, unjust enrichment is a basis for obtaining restitution based on quasi-contract or imposition of a constructive trust. (citation.)