Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 20STCV40419, Date: 2025-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Marco Aiello owns a condominium unit in North Hollywood. Plaintiff alleges the premises suffered a sewer back-up incident causing excessive damages. Plaintiff also alleges the Association acted in bad faith by promulgating proposed rule changes harmful to Plaintiff and in violation of applicable laws. Plaintiff asserts claims against 4220 Bellflower, Inc., the association’s president, and the property manager for (1) negligence, (2) violation of Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, (3) Violation of CC&Rs, (4) intentional interference with contract, (5) declaratory relief, (6) intentional concealment, (7) breach of contract, and (8) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. Plaintiff is given 30 days leave to amend the Sixth Cause of Action to allege the elements of concealment, including reliance, with the requisite specificity, consistent with this ruling.

The rules applicable to demurrers also apply to motions for judgment on the pleadings. (County of Orange v. Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 21, 32.) The trial court must accept as true all material facts properly pleaded, but does not consider conclusions of law or fact, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or facts that are judicially noticed. (Stevenson Real Estate Services, Inc. v. CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Services, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1219-20.) “A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself.” (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.)

4820 Bellflower, Inc. (the “HOA”), is a homeowner’s association for condo units located at 4820 Bellflower Avenue, in North Hollywood, California. (FAC ¶ 13.) Plaintiff owns Unit 208 in 4820 Bellflower. (Id. ¶ 12.) Defendant Truck is the HOA’s insurer; it issued insurance policy number 60487-14094, covering the HOA as the named insured, and defendants Coro Community Management and Consulting, LLC as an additional insured, and Linda Abruzzo, the HOA’s president, pursuant to its directors & officer liability coverage. (Id. ¶¶ 21, 109-110.)

Plaintiff alleges that the property was defectively constructed, including problems where Unit 208’s pipes connected to the HOA’s common area pipes. (Id. ¶ 25.) Because fixing the plumbing defects would be cost prohibitive, the HOA decided to periodically clean out the pipes. (Id. ¶ 28.) From December 2019 through July 2019, Plaintiff’s unit showed signs of sewer backup, and he made repeated requests to have the pipes cleaned, including “hydro-jetting.” (Id. ¶ 31.) This never occurred. Plaintiff alleges he was “charged $235 by [R&R Defendants] for a service call that did not address the long over-due maintenance of hydro-jetting the common areas.” (Id. ¶ 31(e).) Then, on July 11, 2019, there was a backup causing damage to plaintiff’s unit. (Id. ¶ 32.) Truck paid the HOA $21,700.96, in connection with the damage to plaintiff’s unit, but he alleges that the HOA allegedly held the money to hurt plaintiff, simply “because they could.” (Id. ¶ 34.)

Plaintiff alleges that, in an effort to avoid liability and further single him out, the Building Defendants insisted that the plumber’s invoices for the repairs be revised to reflect that the blockage was in the vertical pipes, and not the horizontal pipes. (Id. ¶¶ 47.) Plaintiff alleges that the R&R Defendants, at the Building Defendants’ request, altered their invoice five separate times “to add verbiage to avoid liability.” (Id.)

“The required elements for fraudulent concealment are (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he or she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact; and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact. [Citation.]” (Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Med. Grp., Inc. (2015) 238 Cal. App. 4th 124, 162.)

Defendant argues the second element, a duty to disclose, is not present here. Defendant contends Plaintiff has not allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship between Plaintiff and moving Defendant, or any other “relationship” between them, to impose a duty to disclose. “R&R Plumbing is not a fiduciary to Plaintiff,” argues Defendant, “and its dealings or interactions as it relates to the revised invoices were with Coro, not Plaintiff.” (Mtn. 6: 9-10.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Plaintiff and moving Defendants “were in a special and contractual relationship.” (Opp. 2: 7.) Plaintiff contends a duty existed “either 1) through the prior contractual relationship of February 2019 between Plaintiff and Defendants, and/or 2) through the relationship of being the only plumber permitted to work on the common area pipes.” (Opp. 4: 19-22.)

Defendant responds that “Plaintiff's argument improperly conflates two distinct transactions—one involving direct dealings between Plaintiff and R&R Plumbing (February 2019) and another exclusively between R&R Plumbing and Coro (July 2019).” (Reply 2: 24-26.)

Generally, there are “four circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud: (1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 336.) These circumstances presuppose a “relationship” between the parties. A relationship is present if there is “some sort of transaction between the parties. [Citations.] Thus, a duty to disclose may arise from the relationship between seller and buyer, employer and prospective employee, doctor and patient, or parties entering into any kind of contractual agreement.” (Id. at 337.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges R&R visited the unit in February 2019 “for a service call” and charged him $235. (FAC ¶ 31.) However, the incident on which Plaintiff alleges the modified invoice and concealment cause of action occurred on July 11, 2019. (Id. ¶¶ 45-47.) R&R visited the unit two separate times, five months apart. Plaintiff was billed for the February visit. R&R was billed for the July visit. Viewed this way, these visits might not demonstrate a single contractual relationship. Instead, R&R was arguably acting at Coro’s behest for the latter visit.

However, Plaintiff alleges that R&R was the “only permitted plumber that could access and snake the common areas of the Project.” (Id. ¶ 101.) In other words, Plaintiff allegedly had no choice but to utilize R&R for all plumbing issues. This would seem to demonstrate a contractual relationship between Plaintiff and R&R. Additionally, because R&R was the only plumber at the property, it had exclusive knowledge of the plumbing defects in Plaintiff’s unit or common areas.

Next, Defendants argue Plaintiff has not alleged reliance on the alleged omission. To state a claim for fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must establish he “would not have acted as he or she did if he or she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact…” (Hambrick, supra, 238 Cal. App. 4th at 162.)

Plaintiff alleges that if “the omitted information been disclosed, Plaintiff (and his insurance carrier) would have behaved differently.” (FAC ¶ 105.) It is not clear from this conclusory allegation, however, how Plaintiff would have done so. After all, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit before he learned that R&R allegedly modified the invoices. This is a critical defect, especially when considering that fraud by concealment must be pleaded with specificity. (Linear Technology Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 115, 132.) It does not appear that Plaintiff addresses this argument in his opposition.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. Generally speaking, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) Plaintiff is given 30 days leave to amend to allege the elements of concealment, including reliance, with the requisite specificity.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.