Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV17113, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV17113 Hearing Date: September 29, 2022 Dept: 54
|
Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles |
|||
|
Hortencia Nieves, |
Plaintiff, |
Case No.:
|
22STCV17113 |
|
vs. |
|
Tentative Ruling
|
|
|
Juan A. Luna, et al., |
Defendants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing Date: September 29,
2022
Department 54, Judge
Maurice A. Leiter
Demurrer to First Amended
Cross-Complaint
Moving Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Hortencia Nieves
Responding Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Juan A.
Luna
T/R: NIEVES’ DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.
NIEVES TO FILE AND SERVE AN
ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.
NIEVES TO NOTICE.
If the parties wish to submit on the
tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with
notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the
day of the hearing.
The
Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
BACKGROUND
On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff Hortencia Nieves sued Defendants Juan
A. Luna, Melaquias Luna, Veronica Estrada, asserting causes of action for (1)
fraud; (2) financial dependent adult abuse; (3) declaratory judgment; and (4)
intentional infliction of emotional distress. Nieves alleges Juan Luna
fraudulently coerced Nieves into transferring title to her home to Luna.
On August 3, 2022, Juan A. Luna filed the operative first amended
cross-complaint against Nieves asserting causes of action for (1) declaratory
relief; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) intentional misrepresentation; and (4)
negligent misrepresentation. Luna alleges Nieves agreed to transfer title to
the property to Luna. In exchange, Luna agreed to pay the mortgage and any
repairs to the property and Nieves would live on the property rent free. Luna
alleges Nieves transferred the property to him knowing that she would later
claim he coerced her into transferring the property.
ANALYSIS
A
demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the
causes of action in it. (CCP §
430.50(a).) A demurrer challenges only
the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual
allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton
v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726,
732.) The court must treat as true the
complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or
conclusions of fact or law. (Id. at 732-33.) The complaint is to be construed liberally to
determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Id.
at 733.)
Nieves
demurs to the third and fourth causes of action for intentional and negligent
misrepresentation.
The
elements of fraud 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.” (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 184.)
In California, fraud, including negligent misrepresentation, must be pled with
specificity. (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167,
184.) “The particularity demands that a plaintiff plead facts which show how,
when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Cansino
v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1469.)
Negligent
misrepresentation requires the defendant to make false statements believing
them to be true, but without reasonable ground for such belief. (See Bily v.
Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370, 407.)
Nieves
asserts that Luna’s claim for misrepresentation fails because Luna does not
allege an actual misrepresentation. Nieves argues that Nieves could not have
“misrepresented” that she would transfer title to the property to Luna because
she did, in fact, transfer title.
Luna
alleges Nieves stated that she agreed to transfer the property to Luna in
exchange for Luna’s paying the mortgage and repair expenses. (FAC ¶ 38.) Luna
alleges that Nieves represented she would abide by this agreement but intended to
claim ownership of the property after Luna paid the mortgage and repaired the
property. (FAC ¶¶ 39-40.) This is sufficient to allege misrepresentation.
Nieves also argues that any representations were made in anticipation of litigation and are therefore barred by the litigation privilege. The Court cannot determine, based on facts alleged, that the representations were made in anticipation of litigation. The demurrer is OVERRULED.