Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2021-01224198, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

1. Demurrer to Amended Complaint
2. Motion to Strike filed by Zero Company Performance Marketing on 6/27/22
3. Case Management Conference

Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

1^st cause of action [fraud]:  It is unclear how reasonable Pltf’s reliance on the statements were, considering Deft was hired for online advertising and not cyber security; Sustain with one final 20 day leave to amend;

2^nd cause of action [negligent misrepresentation]:  See proposed ruling above;  Additionally, the 2 year Statute of Limitations is applicable;  No delayed discovery facts were pled; Plft knew as of 10/06/2018 that Deft’s attempts to lock Lerner out were ineffective; Complaint needed to be filed by 10/06/2020, but was not filed until 10/01/2021; Sustain with one final 20 day leave to amend;

3^rd cause of action [good faith and fair dealing]:  To the extent this cause of action relies on the alleged misrepresentation in providing services, the alleged misrepresentation is not clear;  Sustain with one final 20 day leave to amend.

4^th cause of action [breach of contract]:  Nothing in the contracts quoted in the Complaint provides that a term of the contract was for Deft to prevent access to the system by Lerner; Breach is unclear; Sustain with one final 20 day leave to amend;

5^th cause of action [Violation of B&P code]:  No facts to support this cause of action, and it appears to be contingent on the viability of other causes of action; Sustain with one final 20 day leave to amend;

6^th cause of action [negligence]:  This cause of action [as with the others] relies on the facts pled in the general allegations; No facts pled in the actual cause of action; Deft’s sole argument is that this cause of action is barred by the 2 year statute of limitations which appears to be the case as set forth above; Sustain with one final 20 day leave to amend.