Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV02530, Date: 2024-08-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23AHCV02530 Hearing Date: August 1, 2024 Dept: X
Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X
HEARING DATE: August 1 , 2024 TRIAL
DATE: None set.
CASE: YU-LIN
YU vs MELLISA LO, et al.
CASE NO.: 23AHCV02530
DEMURRER WITHOUT STRIKE
MOVING
PARTY: Defendant Mellisa Lo
RESPONDING
PARTY: Plaintiff Yu-Lin Yu
SERVICE:
Filed
May 2, 2024
OPPOSITION: Filed
July 17, 2024
REPLY: None filed as of July 31, 2024
RELIEF REQUESTED
Defendant
Mellisa Lo demurrers, generally and specifically, pursuant to California Code
of Civil Procedure §430.10 (e) and (f), to the single cause of action for fraud
of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
BACKGROUND
On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff Yu-Lin Yu
filed a Complaint against Mellisa Lo, an individual; Knn Luxury, an
entity form unknown; and Does 1 to 25. The Complaint alleges one cause of
action for Fraud arising from the alleged sale of counterfeit luxury handbags.
On
May 2, 2024, Defendant filed the instant demurrer.
On
July 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition.
As
of July 31, 2024, no reply has been filed.
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer with leave
to amend.
LEGAL STANDARD
A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the
grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a
matter of which the court may take judicial notice. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30,
subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The
purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising
questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.)
“In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect,
its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice
between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the
demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions,
deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds
(2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court
liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has
been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th
726, 733.)
Code of Civil
Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to
this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by
telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for
the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would
resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days
before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41,
subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a
declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., §
430.41, subd. (a)(3).)
DISCUSSION
Meet and Confer
Defendant’s counsel states that he
was unable to meet and confer with Plaintiff because Plaintiff did not respond
to his request. Defendant’s counsel does not present any evidence showing that
an attempt was made. Therefore, the meet and confer requirement was
insufficient. Nevertheless, the court will analyze the merits below.
Merits
Defendant demurs
to the entire complaint because the only cause of action, for Fraud fails as it
is uncertain and fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Mot.
at p. 3.) Plaintiff argues that the Complaint was sufficiently pled at this
stage. (Opp. at p. 4.)
“The elements of fraud, which give rise to the tort action for
deceit, are (a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or
nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to
defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting
damage.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 631, 638.) “[F]raud must be
pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice. . . .This
particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which show how, when,
where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Lazar,
supra, 12 Cal. 4th at 645 [internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted].)
The Complaint
alleges “On multiple occasions in 2023, Plaintiff met with Defendants
and their representatives to purchase Hermes
and other luxury bags from the Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff met with
Mellissa Lo and during each meeting, Plaintiff asked Ms. Lo if the bags she was
selling were genuine and original luxury bags.” (Complaint ¶ 8.) The Complaint
further alleges “Plaintiff asked Ms. Lo if the
bags she was selling were genuine and original luxury bags. On each and every occasions,
Ms. Lo stated that the bags were original and genuine and were not fake. This
was a lie. Every bag that the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendants was a
fake bag.” (Complaint ¶ 8.) Moreover, the Complaint alleges “ Defendants, and
each of them, knew that they were selling fake bags and they lied to the
Plaintiff so as to convince the Plaintiff to purchase the fake bags.”
(Complaint ¶ 9.) Defendants knew that their false statements would be relied on
by the Plaintiff and the Defendants wanted the Plaintiff to rely on their false
statements so that they would purchase the fake products. (Complaint ¶ 10.)
Defendants knew that the fake bags would not be easily detected as fakes and
the Plaintiff would not be able to identify that they were fake without having
an expert in bags review the bags in detail. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the
representations of the Defendants and her reliance was reasonable under the
circumstances. (Complaint ¶ 11.)
The Court finds these facts are insufficient
to state a cause of action for fraud because they are general and conclusory. For
instance, Plaintiff states, “on multiple occasions in 2023” and “Defendants, and each of them, knew that they
were selling fake bags . . ..” (Complaint ¶¶ 8, 10.) These are examples of the
Complaint’s lack of particularity.
Therefore, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer
with leave to amend for failure to state sufficient facts for a fraud cause of
action.
CONCLUSION
The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer with leave
to amend. Plaintiff is ordered to file a First Amended Complaint within 20 days
of this order.
Dated: August 1, 2024 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court