Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 21STCV00891 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Rekha Sachdeva and Rekha Sachdeva Revocable Living Trust (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

This action arises out of a dispute concerning the sale of real property (the “Property”). The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges: (1) fraudulent concealment; and (2) negligence.[1]

The SAC alleges: Moving Defendants were the owners of the Property at issue in this case. (SAC ¶ 8.) Moving Defendants were involved in a dispute concerning the Property sometime before September 2012. (SAC ¶ 10.) The 2012 dispute resulted in litigation and a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) that restricted the use of the Property in a manner that lowered its value. (See SAC ¶¶ 10-11, 13.) Moving Defendants failed to disclose the Settlement Agreement to Plaintiffs before Plaintiffs agreed to purchase the Property on or about August 9, 2018, despite a written disclosure form specifically requesting information regarding lawsuits and settlement agreements concerning the Property. (See SAC ¶¶ 12-14.)

Moving Defendants filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to the first cause of action on the grounds that the SAC fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for fraudulent concealment.

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law. (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.) The court accepts as true all material factual allegations and affords them a liberal construction, but it does not consider conclusions of fact or law, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or judicially noticed facts. (Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254.) With respect to a demurrer, the complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded. (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.) A demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend if there exists no reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

The elements of fraudulent 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 had known of the concealed or suppressed fact; and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff suffered damage. (Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc (2001) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248.) The heightened pleading for standard for fraud claims is relaxed if it appears from the nature of the allegations that the defendant must necessarily possess full information, or if the facts lie more in the knowledge of opposing parties. (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384-85 (“Alfaro”).) The plaintiff need not plead specific information that should be within the knowledge of the defendant. (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 793.)

As a preliminary matter, the Court has not considered matters outside of the allegations of the SAC and has assumed that the allegations in the SAC are true. The Court finds that the SAC adequately alleges fraudulent concealment. The SAC alleges the time and manner of the concealment of the Settlement Agreement, and the allegations regarding Moving Defendants’ knowledge of the concealment are sufficient as such information is more likely to be within the control of Moving Defendants. (See Alfaro, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at 1384-85.)

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Court notes that the causes of action are not labeled.