Nikhil Jhaveri v. Adt Security Services, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Appellants Nikhil Jhaveri and Ela Jhav-eri seek review of the district court’s order granting appellee ADT Security Services, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs allege that the district court failed to consider relevant state law precedent, and erred in not granting plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. We review the district court’s order de novo. We affirm in part, reverse and remand.

In granting ADT’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the district court found that plaintiffs alleged a breach only of ADT’s contractual duties, and did not demonstrate that ADT breached a duty arising outside the parties’ agreement. We agree with the district court that, to the extent plaintiffs seek a remedy for a breach of contract, that remedy is limited to the liquidated damages provision in the parties’ agreements. However, reading the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, they allege negligence independent of the contract, just as a patient can sue a doctor for negligence even though the patient and doctor also have a contractual relationship. See Erlich v. Menezes, 21 Cal.4th 543, 551 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 886 , 981 P.2d 978…