Cross-Defendants Henry Schein PPT, Inc. and Russell S. Okihara demur to the First Amended Cross-Complaint brought by Defendants/Cross-Complainants Bita Tahvildari, Rita Tahvildari Auton and Tahvildari Heavenly Smiles Dental Practice.
In determining whether a complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.
The first cause of action is entitled "Equitable Indemnity." To be more precise, the cause of action alleged is for implied contractual indemnity, although "implied contractual indemnity is now viewed simply as 'a form of equitable indemnity.' Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1151, 1157.
"Historically, [implied contractual] indemnity was available when two parties in a contractual relationship were both responsible for injuring a third party; recovery rested on
Hearing Date
May 23, 2019
Category
Civil - Unlimited
Type
Breach of Contract/Warranty
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Cross-Defendants Henry Schein PPT, Inc. and Russell S. Okihara demur to the First Amended Cross-Complaint brought by Defendants/Cross-Complainants Bita Tahvildari, Rita Tahvildari Auton and Tahvildari Heavenly Smiles Dental Practice.
In determining whether a complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.
The first cause of action is entitled "Equitable Indemnity." To be more precise, the cause of action alleged is for implied contractual indemnity, although "implied contractual indemnity is now viewed simply as 'a form of equitable indemnity.' Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1151, 1157.
"Historically, [implied contractual] indemnity was available when two parties in a contractual relationship were both responsible for injuring a third party; recovery rested on