Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV25395, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25395    Hearing Date: May 19, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

On March 3, 2023, Plaintiff Hanif Carter filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC)  that appears to assert causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Fraud; (3) Malfeasance; (4) Breach of Trust; and (5) Peonage.

On April 6, 2023, Defendant Carwell, LLC dba Land Rover South Bay (“Carwell”) filed a demurrer to the complaint in its entirety for uncertainty and failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.  Since Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Demurrer, the court finds that Plaintiff agrees that Carwell’s demurrer has merit.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Ibid.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

A demurrer for uncertainty is granted “if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) Usually, a complaint does not need to be a “model of clarity” to survive a demurrer because most ambiguities can be clarified through discovery. (Ibid.)

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.)

Based upon Jon Abramson’s declaration, the Court finds that Defendant has complied with the statutory meet and confer requirement.  

DISCUSSION

A.                Sufficiency of Pleadings

            Defendant demurs to the SAC  in its entirety for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and for uncertainty.

As stated previously, Plaintiff filed a SAC that appears to assert causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Fraud; (3) Malfeasance; (4) Breach of Trust; and (5) Peonage.

1.      Breach of Contract.

To assert a breach of contract cause of action Plaintiff must allege “the basic elements of a breach of contract claim. ‘A cause of action for breach of contract requires proof of the following elements: (1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach.’  [Citation.]”  (Miles v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 394, 402.)

 The court is unable to ascertain what was actually offered, what was actually accepted, and what consideration was provided.   The court is unable to ascertain how defendant breach the contract.  Plaintiff apparently wanted to buy a vehicle; Defendant told him the price; and Plaintiff never tendered payment.  As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for a breach of contract, and Plaintiff’s assertions are vague and unintelligible.

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the first cause of action for breach of contract.

2.      Fraud.

The elements of fraud are (1) a misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity (scienter); (3) intent to defraud – i.e., induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage.  (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 173 (Small).)

            The policy of liberal construction of the pleadings ordinarily does not apply to cause of action for fraud, and fraud must be pled with particularity. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73 (Stansfield).) “The particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.’ ” (Ibid., emphasis in original.) In an action against a corporate employer, the burden is higher, and a plaintiff must “allege of the names of the persons who made the fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.” (Ibid.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has filed to meet this heightened pleading standard for fraud.  The SAC fails to set forth any misrepresentation by Defendant.  The SAC appears to allege that Defendant did not give Plaintiff a free Vehicle even though Plaintiff tried to pay Defendant by sending a demand for money to Janet Yellen / the Social Security Administration / the Treasury Department. This does not in any way establish Fraud.  As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for fraud, and Plaintiff’s assertions are vague and unintelligible.

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the second cause of action for fraud. 

3.       Malfeasance.

The SAC admits Malfeasance is a “…wrongful, unlawful, or dishonest act; esp., wrongdoing by misconduct by a public official.” (SAC Pg. 18, emphasis added.)  Defendant, however, is merely an automobile dealership. It is not, nor could anybody legitimately believe or allege, that Defendant is a public official.  As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for malfeasance, and Plaintiff’s assertions are vague and unintelligible.

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the third cause of action for malfeasance. 

4.       Breach of Trust.

Plaintiff has failed to allege any actual agreed on trust relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant.  Defendant never agreed to be a trustee for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff cannot unilaterally force JLR South Bay to be a trustee. Since there is no trust relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, Defendant could not have breached a trust that does not exist. As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for breach of trust, and Plaintiff’s assertions are vague and unintelligible.

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the fourth cause of action for breach of trust. 

5.       Peonage.

Peonage is a claim that the defendant has forced the plaintiff into involuntary servitude or

slavery to satisfy a debt.  Defendant points out that it “has almost no idea what to say in response to this cause of action because it is completely false.” (Demurer p. 15) Plaintiff fails to set forth any facts that Defendant attempted to force Plaintiff into servitude to satisfy a debt. Plaintiff apparently wanted to buy a vehicle; Defendant told him the price; and Plaintiff never tendered payment.  As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for a Peonage, and Plaintiff’s assertions are vague and unintelligible.

B.                 Leave to Amend

Defendant requests that the Court deny Plaintiff leave to amend.  Plaintiff filed no opposition and apparently agrees that he is unable to amend the complaint to assert a valid cause of action.

When a demurrer is sustained, the Court determines whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.¿(Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318).¿¿When a plaintiff “has pleaded the general set of facts upon which his cause of action is based,” the court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint, since plaintiff should not “be deprived of his right to maintain his action on the ground that his pleadings were defective for lack of particulars.” (Reed v. Norman (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 892, 900.)¿Accordingly, California law imposes the burden on the plaintiffs to demonstrate the manner in which they can amend their pleadings to state their claims against a defendant.¿¿(Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) “Denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the complaint shows on its face it is incapable of amendment.¿ [Citation.]¿ Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given." (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.) 

The court finds that plaintiff has not and cannot set forth facts that Defendant breached any duty to Plaintiff.  The court finds that plaintiff has not and cannot set forth facts supporting a breach of contract or constructive fraud.

CONCLUSION

            Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.  Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint.