Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV13568, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13568    Hearing Date: July 25, 2022    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

Defendant Maz Construction/Golden Coolers’ Demurrer

            Defendant Maz Construction/Golden Coolers demurs to both causes of action alleged in plaintiff Juana Velazquez’s complaint.

First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract

Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts for breach of contract.  “Someone who is not a party to the contract has no standing to enforce the contract.”  (Hatchwell v. Blue Shield of California (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1027, 1034.) 

The complaint alleges a written agreement was made between “Tacos Los Tres Portillos and MAZ Construction/Golden Coolers.”  (Comp., PLD-C-001(1), ¶ BC-1.)  The contract attached as exhibit A states the parties are “Tacos Los 3 Portillos” and “Golden Coolers.”  (Ex. A, p. 1.)  The final page of the contract includes a signature line for “Owner: Tacos Los 3 Portillos [¶] By: Luis / Juana Velazquesz [sic] [¶] Owner.”  (Id., § 28.)  Both Luis Velazquez and plaintiff Juana Velazquez signed the agreement.  (Ibid.; Ex. B, p. 1.) 

Though plaintiff Juana Velazquez signed the agreement on behalf of Tacos Los 3 Portillos, that does not make her a party to the contract.  Plaintiff alleges insufficient facts to establish she, as an individual, has a basis for enforcing this contract.

Second Cause of Action for Fraud

Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts for fraud.  The complaint indicates she asserts fraud by concealment.  (Comp., PLD-C-001(3), ¶ FR-3.)  Fraud by concealment requires: (1) the defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact; (2) defendant had a duty to disclose the fact to plaintiff; (3) defendant intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with intent to defraud plaintiff; (4) plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would have acted otherwise if she had known of the concealed fact; and (5) plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the concealment.  (Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248.)  Fraud requires more specific pleading than other causes of action.  (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.)

Plaintiff’s cause of action for fraud (Comp., PLD-C-001(3)) is almost entirely blank.  Plaintiff wrote only the following substantive text on the form: “Maz Construction / Golden Coolers contract stated that construction contract will be completed by 12/14/2020, and rents in the amount of $6532.6 will be paid by them.  [¶]  MAZ Construction also agreed to pay for all furniture and anything necessary for the project and now refuse to do so.  [¶]  All city permits had expire[d] due to their negligence.”  (Id., ¶ FR-7.)

These allegations are insufficient for the elements of fraud.  They amount to merely restating a cause of action for breach of contract: defendants had obligations under the contract and did not perform them. 

Disposition

            Defendant Maz Construction / Golden Coolers’ demurrer to plaintiff Juana Velazquez’s complaint is sustained with 30 days’ leave to amend.