Judge: Michael L. Stern, Case: 23STCV0848, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV0848    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: 62

CASE NAME: Williams v Astroturf Corporation et al

CASE NUMBER:  23STCV08478

HEARING DATE:    January 25, 2024

DEPT: 62

HON.  ROLF M. TREU

SUBJECT: Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

MOVING PARTY: Defendants – Astroturf Corporation and Astroturf Construction Corporation

RESP. PARTY: None filed.

Parties

Plaintiff Mark Williams purports (in the pleading’s caption) to represent on Behalf of Los Angeles County and California Taxpayers. 

However, in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 12), he claims to represent the nonprofit Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles.  That nonprofit has gone on record (when objecting to a NORC) stating that Mr. Williams is “a disgruntled former employee of Concerned Citizens who does not represent Concerned Citizens and has no standing to bring claims....”   Even if he was still a member in good standing, he could not represent a corporation as he is not a lawyer.

Allegations

Plaintiff alleges that members/senior officials of the LAUSD conspired with the Astroturf Defendants to sabotage many fields and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.  The allegations claim that the synthetic turf is purposefully made from a defective material that degrades too soon. (See Compl. ¶ 16.)

CAUSES OF ACTION

1. False Claims – against all

2. Breach of Warranty – against the Astroturf Defendants only

3. Inducing Breach of Contract – against the Astroturf Defendants and LAUSD Senior Official Defendants

4. “California Public Records Act” - against the LAUSD Senior Official Defendants only

5. Legal Malpractice – against certain individual attorney defendants

On August 25, 2023, the Court sustained the demurrer filed by the LAUSD Defendants in its entirety without leave to amend.

On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the individual attorney defendants from the action.

On November 17, 2023, the Astroturf Defendants filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings directed at the three causes of action to which they are named.

ANALYSIS

1.     First Cause of Action: False Claims Act -  Tentative Ruling: GRANT without leave to amend. 

In order to state a cause of action under the False Claims Act, the following elements must be alleged: “(1) a false or fraudulent claim (2) that was material to the decision-making process, (3) which defendant presented, or caused to be presented, to the [government] for payment or approval (4) with knowledge that the claim was false or fraudulent.” (Hooper v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (9th Cir. 2012) 688 F.3d 1037, 1047.) Pursuant to Government Code § 2650(b)(1)(A), a claim is “any request or demand … for money” that “[i] s presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the state or of a political subdivision.” A cause of action pursuant to this act must be alleged with particularity similar to a fraud claim. (State of California ex rel. McCann v. Bank of America, N.A. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 897, 906.)

Here, the Complaint fails to allege when or what false representations were made by the Astroturf Defendants. Instead, the Complaint alleges that the Astroturf Defendants informed LAUSD Senior Officials that “its manufacturer did not warranty the LAUSD specific material to fill synthetic turf,” and despite this information, LAUSD officials directed the installment of this material and indemnified the Astroturf Defendants in case of the product’s failure. (Compl. ¶ 66.) Thus, based on the pleadings, it appears that LAUSD had knowledge of the product’s defects, and as a result, the Astroturf Defendants merely acquiesced to LAUSD’s contract proposal. (See Am. Contract Servs. v. Allied Mold & Die (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 854, 864.)

Accordingly, because first cause of action has not been pleaded with the requisite specificity and LAUSD had knowledge of the products purported defects, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted without leave to amend. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348 [determining the burden is on the plaintiff to show that a pleading can be successfully amended].)

2.     Second Cause of Action: Breach of Warranty – Tentative Ruling: GRANT without leave to amend. 

The Astroturf Defendants argue that this cause of action is fails as a matter of law for the following reasons. First, Plaintiff does not allege to be a party to any particular contract because the Purchase Order Agreement was with Concerned Citizens and Plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims on the third-party’s behalf as a pro se litigant. Second, this claim is time barred because it was not brought within four years from the date of accrual, which fell on August 3, 2016 when the Astroturf Defendants purportedly refused to honor the warranty provision of the agreement.

The Court agrees. Because Plaintiff is self-represented and is not alleged to be a party to the pertinent contract, he lacks standing to bring claims on behalf of Concerned Citizens. (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 20 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) Furthermore, because the alleged breach of warranty occurred in August 3, 2016 and even taking into account Emergency Rule 9, the claim is time barred as Plaintiff did not file his complaint until April 2023. (U.C.C. § 2725 [establishing a four-year statute of limitations for a breach of warranty claim]; Amended Emergency Rule 9(a) [creating a tolling period for statutes of limitations that exceed 180 days from April 6, 2020 to October 1, 2020].)

Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as to the second cause of action without leave to amend as Plaintiff is unable to cure these defects. (See Goodman, supra, 18 Cal.3d at 348.)

3.     Third Cause of Action: Inducing Breach of Contract – Tentative Ruling: GRANT without leave to amend.

As with the second cause of action, the Astroturf Defendants raise the same argument with the third cause of action. Based on the reasoning above, the Court finds these arguments to be persuasive. Furthermore, if plaintiff is attempting to allege intentional interference with contract, he first must allege a separate tort done by each named defendant. This would require allegations of a contract to which he is a party. None is alleged. Therefore, Plaintiff is unable to maintain this cause of action.

Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as to the third cause of action without leave to amend. (See Goodman, supra, 18 Cal.3d at 348.)