Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 23STCV03363, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV03363, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03363 Hearing Date: October 25, 2023 Dept: 14

Instant Hearing

Defendant Single Grain now demurs, per Code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.10(e)-(f), to the fourth cause of action[1] in the complaint, on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is barred by the economic loss rule.

Decision

The demurrer is SUSTAINED, with 7 days leave to amend.

Discussion

To plead promissory fraud, Plaintiff must plead only the promise with specificity; a general statement about the promising party’s lack of intent to perform will suffice. Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4^th 1039, 1060. Here, even that general statement is missing. Paragraph 56 of the complaint alleges only that a post-contractual IRS filing was made with intent to deceive the plaintiff.

The defect can easily be amended. And a properly-pled promissory fraud claim would not be barred by the economic loss rule. See Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4^th 543, 551-552.

[1] An error in the caption has led Defendant Single Grain to identify the fraud claim as the third cause of action. The body of the complaint makes clear that it is the fourth.