Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV22399, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22399    Hearing Date: January 3, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 3, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Fourth Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Rebel Way Entertainment, Inc., Ori Globus and Yoram Globus

Responding Party: Plaintiff Sunset Sierra Properties, Inc.

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE ANSWERS TO THE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANTS 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 October 30, 2023, Plaintiff Sunset Sierra Properties, Inc. filed the operative fourth amended complaint against Defendants Rebel Way Entertainment, Inc., Ori Globus and Yoram Globus, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of lease agreement; (2) breach of written guaranty agreement (Ori Globus); (3) breach of written guaranty agreement (Yoram Globus); (4) fraud in the inducement.

This is a commercial landlord-tenant action. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Rebel Way owes over $350,000.00 in unpaid rent. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Ori Globus and Yoram Globus guaranteed Rebel Way’s lease and have breached their guaranties.

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.)

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.)

Defendants demur to the fourth cause of action for fraud fail in the ground that Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts. Plaintiff alleges it required Defendants to guaranty the lease of Defendant Rebel Way as a condition of leasing the property to Rebel Way. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ori signed a guaranty to induce Plaintiff to lease the property to Rebel Way but had no intention of honoring the guaranty. Plaintiff was damaged by entering into the lease. This is sufficient to state a cause of action for fraud.

The demurrer is OVERRULED.