Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: Bahena v. HNI Innovations, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Management Conference

The CMC is continued to 12/15/22 at 2 pm.

Demurrer

Defendants Sulaiman Harooni and S&S Global Investments Inc.’s demurrer is overruled.

Defendants shall file and serve their answers within 10 days.

No misjoinder.  Defendants have not shown that naming Bench Equity LLC, Premium Title of CA Inc., and Tower Escrow Inc. is necessary to accord complete relief among the parties.  Nor have they shown those entities claim an interest relating to the action or that their absence may substantially prejudice them or the named parties.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 389, subd. (a); see also Olszewski v. Scripps Health (2003) 30 Cal.4th 798, 808.)

1st cause of action, fraud.  The FAC states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action with the required specificity.  (See Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638, 645 [elements, specificity]; Miles v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 394, 403 [less specificity required when it appears defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy]; Murphy v. BDO Seidman, LLP (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 687, 702-703 [liability for indirect misrepresentation]; see also FAC ¶¶ 13, 16, 18-22, 30, 41-44.)

2nd cause of action, negligent misrepresentation. The FAC states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action with the required specificity. (See Nissan Motor Acceptance Cases (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 793, 823 [elements]; Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 185, fn. 14 [specificity]; Miles, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at p. 403; Murphy, supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at pp. 702-703; see also FAC ¶¶ 13, 16, 18-22, 30, 41-44.)

3rd cause of action, conversion. The FAC states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action.  (See Voris v. Lampert (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1141, 1150 [elements]; see also FAC ¶¶ 13-40, 51-55.)

4th cause of action, negligence per se.  The FAC states facts sufficient to constitute this claim.  (See Pellegrini v. Weiss (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 515, 524 [negligence, elements]; Bus. & Profs. Code, § 10130; see also FAC ¶¶ 56-60.)  This claim is not predicated on the first three causes of action, which in any event are sufficiently stated.

5th cause of action, common count.  The FAC states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action.  (See Gutierrez v. Girardi (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 925, 937 [elements]; see also FAC ¶¶ 18-20, 22, 30-32, 36, 38-39, 61-63, 65-66, 68, 70-71.)

6th cause of action, conspiracy.  The FAC states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action.  (See IIG Wireless, Inc. v. Yi (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 630, 652 [civil conspiracy, elements]; see also Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 510-511 [a coconspirator incurs tort liability co-equal with the immediate tortfeasors]; FAC ¶¶ 13-44 [fraud], 73-79 [conspiracy to defraud].)  The FAC states this claim is alleged against “All Defendants,” which complies with California Rules of Court, rule 2.112(4).

7th cause of action, Section 17200.  The FAC states facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action, which is adequately based on viable causes of action and the allegedly fraudulent transaction.  (See Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 12704; Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 320-322 [elements, standing]; see also FAC ¶¶ 13-44, 57-60, 73-82.)  The FAC sufficiently states this claim is alleged against “All Defendants.”   (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.112(4).)

Motion to Strike

Defendants Harooni and S&S Global’s motion to strike is denied.    

Paragraph 45.  This paragraph seeking punitive damages is included in the 1st cause of action for fraud – “[t]he pleading of fraud is sufficient.”  (Stevens v. Superior Court (St. Francis Med. Ctr.) (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 610.)

Paragraphs 50, 55, 72.  The FAC states facts sufficient to support punitive damages with respect to the negligent misrepresentation, conversion, and common count causes of action.  (See Civ. Code, § 3294, subds. (a), (c)(1) [malice], (3) [fraud]; Krusi v. Bear, Stearns & Co. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 664, 678 [punitive damages may be recovered in an action for conversion]; Ward v. Taggart (1959) 51 Cal.2d 736, 743 [punitive damages available when a common count is based on a tort like fraud]; see also FAC ¶¶ 13-40, 46-55, 61-63, 65, 66, 68, 70-72.)

Page 16, Prayer at item/paragraph 1.  The prayer for punitive damages is supported by 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th causes of action, as noted above.

Defendants shall give notice.