Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV07895, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07895    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: 72

DEMURRER

Date:               9/27/22 (9:30 AM)

Case:               Pacific Green, LLC et al. v. Hills Group, LLC et al. (22STCV07895)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Hills One, LLC’s Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED.

Defendant Hills One, LLC (“Hills One”) demurs to the first cause of action for fraud and deceit, the second cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, the third cause of action for civil RICO violation, the fourth cause of action for fraudulent inducement to enter into contract, the seventh cause of action for unjust enrichment, the eighth cause of action for money had and received, the ninth cause of action for conversion, and the eleventh cause of action for fraudulent business practices.

Each of these causes of action is based on misrepresentations that allegedly induced plaintiffs to monetarily invest in Hills One. (FAC ¶¶ 123, 125 [fraud and deceit]; 132, 135 [negligent misrepresentation]; 142, 145 [civil RICO violation]; 149, 150 [fraudulent inducement to enter into contract]; 168 [unjust enrichment]; 172, 173 [money had and received]; 176 [conversion]; 183 [fraudulent business practices].) According to Hills One, all the alleged misrepresentations were made by non-parties Alex Reyter, Paul Fiore, and Jay Rifkin (collectively, “Principals”), who were the principals of co-defendant Hills Group, LLC (“Hills Group”).

Hills One maintains that none of the purported misrepresentations in the First Amended Complaint are attributable to Hills One.  As pled, that is true.  While the First Amended Complaint goes into great detail about the purported fraud and misrepresentations made by the Principals on behalf of Hills Group, it is bereft of any factual allegations that Hills One had anything to do with them.  Rather, there is but a single conclusory allegation that all the defendants acted on behalf of one another.  (See FAC ¶ 9.  [“[A]t all times herein mentioned each of the defendants . . . was the agent, principal, employer or employee of each other defendant, and they were acting within the course and scope of such relationship in doing the things herein alleged . . . “].)   Such a pure legal conclusion, without more, is disregarded on demurrer.  (Schep v. Capital One, N.A. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1331, 1336.)

Accordingly, defendant Hills One, LLC’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED in its entirety.  Fifteen (15) days leave to amend.