Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 24PSCV00346, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV00346, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT BY BALKAR S. DEOL AND BM FREIGHT, INC. is SUSTAINED with leave to amend, namely as the Engineers do not have standing.

This case arises from purported misrepresentations in relation to the purchase of real property. Plaintiffs BALKAR S. DEOL and BM FREIGHT INC (collectively, “Plaintiff”) allege the following against LAKSHMI KAPOOR, an individual and INVESTORS TEAM REALTY, INC. (collectively, “Agents”);[1] HANIF DAUD, an individual, SAMAN MAHMOOD, an individual, and ICON ATELIER INC. (collectively, “engineers”): Plaintiff owns and operates a trucking business. (FAC ¶15.) In January 2022, Plaintiff engaged the Agents to purchase a vacant commercial property, which Agents assured Plaintiff that he could secure approvals for outdoor parking of the 18 big rig trucks and then go on to build the desired offices, truck wash areas, and repair area (hereafter “Trucking Facilities”). The Agents, however, made false representations namely that (i) the Engineers were licensed (they were not), (ii) that the easement holder agreed to sell the rights (no such agreement), and (iii) that the City of Redlands approved the use for immediate outdoor truck parking (which City stated under no circumstances would be allowed). (See FAC generally.) To date, Plaintiff seeks to recover $365,600.00 for various damages including real estate broker commission, interest payments on the property, and $48,000.00 paid to the engineers for work they did not do.

On May 1, 2024, the Engineers filed their answer. That same day, the Engineers filed a cross-complaint (CC) for one count of VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 asserted against Plaintiff, PARMINDER SINGH and ANTERJEET KAUR. (Parminder and Anterjeet and are Deol’s son in law and daughter, respectively.)[2]

On May 15, 2024, Kapoor filed her answer to Plaintiff’s FAC. That same day, Investors filed a separate answer.

On May 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a demurrer to an answer. (It is unclear what answer the demurrer is to.)

On May 17, 2024, the Engineers filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s demurrer. That same day, Plaintiff filed a notice of removing the demurrer with Reservation ID: 483530449529 off-calendar. “Said Demurrer will be re-noticed and re-filed with a new reservation ID for June 18, 2024.” That same day, Plaintiff filed the instant demurrer.[3]

On May 29, 2024, the Agents each filed respective amended answers to Plaintiff’s FAC.

Plaintiff demurs to the Unfair Competition COA on the grounds that it fails to allege state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (CCP § 430.10 (e)), lacks standing, lacks specificity, and is unintelligible (CCP § 430.10 (f)). (Demurrer p. 2.)

To state a cause of action under Business & Professions Code § 17200, a plaintiff must allege (1) a business practice, (2) that is unfair, unlawful or fraudulent; and (3) an authorized remedy. Under the UCL, prevailing plaintiffs “are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution.” (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4^th 163, 179).

[Plaintiff], ANTERJEET KAUR, and PARMINDER SINGH, violated California Business and Professions Code § 17200 when they engaged in unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts, practices and/or tactics, by conspiring to and jointly engaging in a scheme to defraud banks to overvalue their property and attempting to give their business an unfair financial advantage over other businesses and harming the public. Furthermore, Cross-Defendants, ANTERJEET KAUR, BALKAR S. DEOL, BM FREIGHT INC., and PARMINDER SINGH tried to enlist Cross-Complainant HANIF DAUD in this scheme, and when he declined to partake, Cross-Defendants wrongfully accused him of failing to fulfill his contractual obligations. (CC ¶52.)

Here, as noted by Plaintiff, the scheme alleged is to the detriment of third parties, not the Engineers. Thus, absent an injury in fact, the Engineers do not have standing to assert this COA. (See Demurrer p. 7, citing L. Offs. of Mathew Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Servs. (2013) 214 Cal. App. 4th 544, 552. Thus, the demurrer is sustained.

As for leave to amend, though the COA likely will fail as a matter of law because the Engineers have not alleged lost money or property,[6] the court grants leave to amend.

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer to the CC is sustained with leave to amend.

[1] Investors is being sued on a vicarious liability theory. (First Amended Complaint (FAC) ¶4.)

[2] Though Plaintiff is now also a cross-defendant, for clarity purposes, the court will address the parties as defined in the court’s ‘background’ section.

[3] The court presumes that Plaintiff took the motion off calendar because of improper notice. According to the opposition to the initial demurrer, the demurrer was required to be served by May 3, 2024 but it was untimely served on May 7.

[4] The parties have met and conferred.

[5] Plaintiff (conclusively) argues that no business practice has been alleged. Not necessarily. The “unfair” standard is intentionally broad, allowing courts maximum discretion to prohibit new schemes to defraud. (Motors, Inc. v. Times Mirror Co. (1980) 102 Cal.3d 735, 740.) And Plaintiff has not set forth an analysis as to why the alleged scheme does not fall under the purview of the UCL. The fact that Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff was the victim of the Engineer’s purported fraudulent scheme is irrelevant to the allegations found within the CC.

[6] See Kwikset Corp. v. Sup. Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310.