Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 22TRCV00714, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00714    Hearing Date: April 11, 2023    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                          Tuesday, April 11, 2023

Department B                                                                                                                            Calendar No. 6

PROCEEDINGS

Salome Davis v. Mikel Hoorizadeh, et al.   

22TRCV00714

1.      Mikel Hoorizadeh’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint  

TENTATIVE RULING

            Mikel Hoorizadeh’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

            Background

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on August 19, 2022.  Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed on December 15, 2022.  Plaintiff alleges the following facts.  In the original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant purchased real property at a Trustee’s sale with knowledge that the sale was being conducted by a suspended corporation, and, thus improper.  With the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has alleged no facts against this Defendant.  Instead, Plaintiff simply generally concludes that the Defendant committed constructive fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree based on an improper sale.  Plaintiff alleges a sole cause of action for Fraud in the Procurement of Foreclosure Decree.  

Meet and Confer

Defendant set forth a meet and confer declaration in sufficient compliance with CCP § 430.41.  (Decl. Joseph Trenk, ¶ 3.)

Demurrer

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.)  In testing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)  The Court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law.  (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.App.4th 634, 638.) Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action.  (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.)  Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer.  (C.C.P., § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.)

Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case "with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.”  (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.)  "Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer."  (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.)  Under Code Civil Procedure § 430.10(f), a demurrer may also be sustained if a complaint is “uncertain.”  Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual allegations are so confusing they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet.  (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

Defendant demurs to the Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 430.10(e) and (f), on the grounds that the cause of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and that the cause of action is uncertain.  

First Cause of Action for Fraud

Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action of the First Amended Complaint is sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action.     

“A complaint for fraud must allege the following elements: (1) a knowingly false representation by the defendant; (2) an intent to deceive or induce reliance; (3) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and (4) resulting damages.”  Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1816. “[T]he elements of an action for fraud and deceit based on a concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he has known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.” Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248.

            “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.”  Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.  Plaintiffs must state facts which “show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.”  Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.

Plaintiff fails to plead specific facts to state a cause of action for Fraud, including specific facts as to the alleged false representations, knowledge that the representations were false, intent to deceive, justifiable reliance, and resulting damages.  In addition, Plaintiff fails to plead the requisite specific facts as to how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.  Finally, the cause of action itself alleges fraud in the procurement of a foreclosure decree.  In the original Complaint, demurring Defendant was alleged simply to be the purchaser of the property at the trustee’s sale.  The theory of liability only alleged fraud in the procurement of a foreclosure decree and no theory of liability as against the purchaser of the property.  Strangely, with the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s allegations became even more vague and non-specific by omitting any actual specific factual allegations against the Defendant.  Instead, the First Amended Complaint simply concludes that the Defendant committed fraud of some type in the procurement of the foreclosure decree without any facts against demurring Defendant, let alone specific facts against the Defendant. Again, as mentioned above, even the barebones and conclusory allegations against the Defendant that were included in the Complaint were omitted in the First Amended Complaint.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s opposition does not provide any basis to show that Plaintiff will be able to state a cause of action with further amendment. Instead, the opposition simply recites a series of legal conclusions and authorities that have no bearing to the issues presented with this Demurrer. Thus, Defendant’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.