Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV05464, Date: 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05464    Hearing Date: January 11, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            On 2/14/2022, Plaintiff Liang Chen (Plaintiff) filed suit against Enae Business School and Miguel Lopez Gonzalez de Leon, alleging: (1) fraud; (2) trespass to chattel; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

            In her supplemental packet, Plaintiff acknowledges language barriers communicating in English. Indeed, the Court notes it is very difficult to follow some of Plaintiff’s contentions. For example, Plaintiff writes “Although the Plaintiff’s own messages state that he was informed that his materials didn’t qualify but that he hoped the school could give him two weeks to modify the proof, however, the Plaintiff was informed this disqualification after almost nine months that just earlier than his expel.” (Plaintiff Decl., ¶ 4.)

            While the Court in no way intends to critique Plaintiff’s English language skills, the Court is unable to fully evaluate Plaintiff’s declaration as written. Plaintiff is urged to consult with a fluent English speaker to assist her in drafting her declaration so that the Court may be able to better evaluate her contentions.

In addition to this issue, the Court has identified the following deficiencies:

-         Plaintiff still has not submitted any evidence to show that Enae defrauded her, or to show that Plaintiff, in fact, met the conditions of the conditional admission offer by the stated deadline.

The exchanges with Enae Business School staff indicate that Teacher Li was informed that Plaintiff needed to supplement the proof of class hours and mail the original materials to the school. Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence that could refute that. While Plaintiff claims Li was not her agent, she herself claimed that he was the point of contact who submitted her materials. While Plaintiff submitted evidence that Enae had her email address, she has not submitted evidence to show that Enae improperly treated Li as the point of contact (given that he submitted on her behalf) or that this policy violated any law. While the Court understands Plaintiff’s contention that Enae’s policy was unfair, Plaintiff must show that their actions actually violated the law.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s own messages state that she was informed that her materials didn’t qualify but that she hoped the school could give her two weeks to modify the proof.  While the Court understands Plaintiff’s objection to finding out her documentation was insufficient eight months into school, Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to show that Enae imposed false deadlines, or that its deadlines violated any law. Plaintiff also hasn’t submitted any evidence to show that Enae did not provide notifications to Li about the conditions/deadlines of continued enrollment. Moreover, the preadmission letter, which Plaintiff admits receiving, clearly stated that continued enrollment would be conditioned on submission of relevant academic materials including proof of class hours. 

-         The notice of admission clearly indicates that it is a pre-admission letter and that there were enrollment requirements. Plaintiff claims she received this letter, but did not understand it because it was in Spanish. Given that Plaintiff was applying to a Spanish-language program, and because Plaintiff had an opportunity to discover the nature of the letter, this evidence is insufficient to show fraud. 

-         Plaintiff claims that Li was not her agent, but in her original declaration, she herself writes “I hired Mr. Hui Li to mail all original paper above to the school from China.” Plaintiff must reconcile these claims.

-         Plaintiff’s exchanges indicate that Plaintiff was at some point transferred to a second agent. Plaintiff must further explain this.

-         Plaintiff must submit evidence to show the alleged bank transfers were made.

-         Plaintiff has not set forth any basis for Miguel Lopez Gonzalez de Leon’s individual liability