Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV01056, Date: 2024-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01056    Hearing Date: October 10, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Guo v. Amazon Web Services, Case no. 24SMCV01056

Hearing date October 10, 2024

Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint

Plaintiff Guo, in pro per, sues defendant Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) for fraud, using a form complaint, alleging he was scammed out of $197,935 by a fake cryptocurrency investment website, hosted by AWS, and run by an unnamed third party. Defendant demurs.

“The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420. A complaint “is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts” Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, but plaintiff must set forth the essential facts of the case “with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [the] defendant with the nature, source and extent” of the plaintiff’s claim. Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099.

Defendant argues the complaint is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible. The totality of the alleged facts are: “[n]ot known a suspected person who ordered the website hosting service from Amazon.” Compl. FR-1. Plaintiff fails to allege a theory of fraud or identify when said fraud occurred, with whom, or any other details. Plaintiff has not stated the name of the entity he was using to conduct business. There is no allegation regarding jurisdiction or the date of the alleged fraud.

Damages and a vague allegation of fraud alone are not sufficient to survive demurrer. Plaintiff must identify the theory of fraud and allege specific facts to satisfy each element. As plaintiff is suing a corporate entity, the complaint must identify “the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.” Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.

In opposition plaintiff alleges the perpetrator of the alleged fraud was Lena/Shi Yang, who is not named in the complaint. Defendant argues plaintiff should not be given leave to amend. As this is a demurrer to an initial complaint, the court will SUSTAIN with 20 days leave to amend.