Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV04166, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV04166    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

(1)   DEFENDANT AMADEO PANTALEON MARROQUIN'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

(2)   DEFENDANT AMADEO PANTALEON MARROQUIN'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT is MOOT.

(A proposed order has been filed, but the court notes that the order inadvertently states that the moving party is Burlington, which is not a party to this action.)

Background

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident that happened in December 2022. Plaintiff DAVID CAMPOS alleges the following against Defendants GRAND TRANSPORTATION INC. and AMADEO PANTALEON MARROQUIN: On 8/19/24, Marroquin, on behalf of all Defendants, signed a Declaration that stated that on the date of the subject accident, that “defendants were insured by Hudson Insurance Company under a commercial automobile policy which had a maximum policy limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence. Said Declaration further stated that other than this Hudson policy, that defendants had "no other insurance, including no excess insurance and/or umbrella insurance that would be potentially applicable" to this loss. Based on this Declaration and other representations by defendants and their insurance carrier/attorney, Plaintiff agreed to resolve his claims for $1,000,000 in reliance on the misrepresentations. Thereafter, Plaintiff discovered that the statements in the Declaration were not true and that additional insurance coverage did exists. As such, Plaintiff notified Defendants that he was rescinding his agreement to settle for $1,000,000 based on discovery of the misrepresentations.” (Complaint p. 6 of 8 of PDF, FR-2.)^[1]

On December 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed suit for (1) Motor Vehicle; (2) General Negligence; and (3) Fraud. The complaint also seeks exemplary damages.

On January 27, 2025, Marroquin (hereinafter, “Defendant”) filed the instant demurrer with a motion to strike (MTS).

On February 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the MTS.

On February 18, 2025, Defendant filed a reply in support of his MTS.

Discussion^[2]

Defendant demurs on two grounds: (1) Plaintiff fails to plead his cause of action for fraud with necessary specificity and (2) Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cause of action for fraud because his damages claim is entirely speculative and uncertain. 

Here, for reasons to be discussed below–namely as this falls short of the pleading standard–the court sustains the demurrer with leave to amend, rendering the MTS moot.

“The elements of fraud ... are (a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” (Demurrer p. 4, citing Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 173.) In pleading fraud, the COA must be pled with specificity. That means that the plaintiff must “show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Demurrer p. 3, quoting Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal. App. 4th 1602, 1614 [internal citations omitted].) “Every element of the cause of action for fraud must be alleged in the proper manner and the facts constituting the fraud must be alleged with sufficient specificity to allow defendant to understand fully the nature of the charge made.” (Demurrer p. 4, quoting Stansfield v. Starkey (1990), 220 Cal. App. 3d 59, 73.)

Here, the court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff provides no information regarding (1) what this alleged additional insurance coverage is nor (2) how he discovered it.

It appears that Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the demurrer; Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to strike.

Therefore, as the pleading for the fraud COA fails to meet the necessary specificity, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer with leave to amend. Consequently, the MTS to strike punitive damages is moot as those damages are in relation to his 2nd COA for fraud, which is subject to amendment.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend and the MTS is moot.