Judge: Michael J. Strickroth, Case: 2022-01253711, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Demurrer to Amended Complaint

Defendant Christy Mickel’s Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for False Inducement and False Promise in the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendant demurs to the First Amended Complaint on the grounds the second cause of action for fraudulent inducement and false promise fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. Code of Civil Procedure  § 430.10(e).

“Where, as here, the demurrer is based on a claim that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, if it “ ‘appears that the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants, the complaint will be held good, although the facts may not be clearly stated, or may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to the cause of action shown, or although the plaintiff may demand relief to which he is not entitled under the facts alleged.” Berry v. Frazier (2023) 2023 WL 3141235 *, *4, internal citations omitted.

“The facts essential to the statement of a cause of action in fraud or deceit based on a promise made without any intention of performing it are: (1) a promise made regarding a material fact without any intention of performing it; (2) the existence of the intent at the time of making the promise; (3) the promise was made with intent to deceive or with intent to induce the party to whom it was made to enter into the transaction; (4) the promise was relied on by the party to whom it was made; (5) the party making the promise did not perform; (6) the party to whom the promise was made was injured.” Muraoka v. Budget Rent-A-Car, Inc. (1984) 160 Cal. App. 3d 107, 119.

Here, Plaintiff has alleged that 1) at the time of entering into the settlement agreement, Defendant made a promise to Plaintiff that she would make payments on the settlement agreement and that she had the finances in place or would make efforts to obtain the finances to pay the settlement amounts; 2) that Defendant did not intend to perform the promise when made; 3) that Defendant intended Plaintiff rely on the promise; 4) that Plaintiff relied on the promise by entering into the agreement; 5) that Defendant did not perform the promised act; and 6) that Plaintiff was injured as a result. (FAC ¶¶ 19-26.)

These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for fraud based on a false promise. Accordingly, the Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.  Defendant has 10 days to answer.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Management Conference

Regardless as to whether the parties submit to the tentative on the demurrer above, counsel are required to attend the Case Management Conference, either in person or remotely.