Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV01558, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01558    Hearing Date: November 18, 2024    Dept: I

The demurrer is OVERRULED.  The gist of the demurrer is only to the UCL cause of action.  Defendant asserts that plaintiff does not adequately allege whether the conduct violates the unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent prong of the statute.  Defendant also asserts that there is no evidence or allegation that the public was deceived or likely to be deceived.  And finally defendant asserts that plaintiff suffered no economic injury and thus is not harmed and lacks standing.  

While the court agrees that the complaint is not a paragon of pleading, it does allege that defendant advertised that the facility provided good services and accommodations including well furnished rooms and that there would be a safe and secure environment.  (Compl., ¶25.)  However, she alleges that in fact her room was very poorly furnished and that no cleaning staff was assigned to it, requiring that she clean it.  (Id., at ¶28.)  She also alleged that male staff members checked the rooms at midnight, causing her to panic and not view the facility as a safe space.  (Id. at ¶29.)  Further, male staff allegedly used the same bathrooms in which the women showered, causing a lack of privacy, and that people walked in and out of what was supposed to be confidential therapy sessions.  (Id., ¶30.)  That is enough for these purposes.  It would appear that the principal prong of the UCL is fraud.  And the court can infer that plaintiff is alleging that her experience was not unique but rather was typical.  If so, then the statement that the facilities were well furnished would appear to be untrue (or at least arguably so), and if privacy was lacking, that could also be inconsistent with the promise of a safe and secure space.  The court is not saying that this is the world’s best complaint, and it could well be that the complaint (or this aspect of it) does not pass summary judgment muster.  But it is enough for pleading purposes.  For standing, plaintiff alleges that had she known the truth, she would not have agreed to go to defendant’s facility.  Being there cost her money, and that is enough of an injury in fact to give rise to standing.

Defendant has 30 days to answer.