Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV05338, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV05338    Hearing Date: December 6, 2023    Dept: 74

Ivan Arnoldo Luna, et al. v. Bellwood Animal Hospital, et al.

Defendants’ Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving papers, opposition. No reply was timely filed.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a dispute over a deceased pet.

            On September 18, 2023, Plaintiffs Ivan Arnoldo Luna and Annabelle Fonseca (Plaintiffs) filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against Defendants Bellwood Animal Hospital and Mohamed Khalid Haridy Ghaefeer (Defendants). The FAC alleges the following causes of action: breach of contract, general negligence, ‘intentional tort,’ and fraud.

            On November 7, 2023, Defendants filed this demurrer.

LEGAL STANDARD           

            A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (¿¿Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318¿¿.) “¿To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.¿” (¿¿C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872¿¿.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (¿Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967¿.) A demurrer “¿does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.¿” (¿¿Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713¿¿.)

DISCUSSION 

            Defendants contend Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to support a fraud claim. The elements for this cause of action are: (1) false representation of a material fact, (2) knowledge of its falsity, (3) intent to defraud, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage. (Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104, 109.) A plaintiff must specifically plead a fraud claim. (Hall v. Department of Adoptions (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 898, 904.) This particularity requirement requires the plaintiff to plead facts showing how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)

            In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege three grounds proving fraud. First, Plaintiffs claim Defendants forged Plaintiffs’ signatures on the registration form, procedures estimate, invoices, and critical care estimate. (FAC, p. 8.) Defendants also allegedly altered veterinary records about Plaintiffs’ dog’s condition, treatment, and death. (FAC, p. 8.) These allegations satisfy the first element of the fraud claim. The trier of fact could further conclude that Defendants knew their representations were false when they altered the records and forged Plaintiff’s signature, which satisfies the second and third elements. In reliance on the forged documents and altered medical records, Plaintiffs paid for extra and unnecessary veterinary expenses. (FAC, p. 9.) This allegation satisfies the fourth and fifth elements.

            Moreover, Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficiently particular. From the FAC, the trier of fact can deduce how and by what means Defendants made the misrepresentations: forgery of Plaintiffs’ signatures and alteration of medical records. (FAC, p. 8.) The trier of fact can also ascertain when the fraud took place: between August 27, 2020, and September 1, 2020. (FAC, p. 6.) In addition, the alleged fraud took place at the Bellwood Animal Hospital and Defendants made the misrepresentations to Plaintiffs. Thus, Plaintiffs have pleaded their fraud claim with sufficient particularity.

CONCLUSION 

            The court overrules Defendants’ demurrer.

Defendants shall give notice.