Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV13063, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV13063 Hearing Date: June 14, 2024 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
23STCV13063 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
June
14, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[tentative]
Order RE: defendants’ demurrer to complaint |
||
MOVING PARTIES: Defendants B.A.C.C.O. Mechanical
Inc., Jeffrey S. McGowan, and Alex Barrera
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Traditional Trio Holdings LLC
Demurrer to Complaint
The court
considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with this demurrer. No reply papers were filed.
DISCUSSION
Defendants B.A.C.C.O. Mechanical Inc. (“B.A.C.C.O.”), Jeffrey S.
McGowan (“McGowan”), and Alex Barrera (“Barrera”) (collectively, “Defendants”)
move the court for an order sustaining their demurrer to the third cause of
action for promissory fraud alleged in the Complaint filed by plaintiff
Traditional Trio Holdings LLC (“Plaintiff”) on June 7, 2023.
The court overrules Defendants’ demurrer to the third cause of action
for promissory fraud because it states facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10,
subd. (e).)
First, the court finds that this cause of action is not barred by the
economic loss rule since (1) the economic loss rule bars claims when they arise
from, or are not independent of, an underlying contract, and (2) this cause of
action is based on McGowan and Barrera’s affirmative, false promises of
performance and therefore is independent of the alleged breach of contract. (Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022)
12 Cal.5th 905, 923 [tort claims for monetary losses between contractual
parties are barred by the economic loss rule “when they arise from – or are not
independent of – the parties’ underlying contracts”]; Robinson Helicopter Co.,
Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 991 [holding that “the economic
loss rule does not bar [the] fraud and intentional misrepresentation claims
because they were independent of [the] breach of contract”].)
Second, the court finds that Plaintiff has alleged, with the requisite
particularity, facts establishing that (1) in or around early 2022, defendants
McGowan and Barrera made a promise to Plaintiff’s representatives regarding a
material fact without any intention of performing it, i.e., that B.A.C.C.O.
would be able to complete the work on the property required (Compl., ¶¶ 18, 51),
(2) Defendants did not intend to perform the promise at the time that the
promise was made (Compl., ¶ 52 [“The representations made by Defendants were
false at the time they were made”]), (3) Defendants intended to deceive
Plaintiff and to induce it to enter into the contract and make installation
payments to Defendants (Compl., ¶ 52), (4) Plaintiff reasonably relied on the
representations by entering into the contract with Defendants and making
installation payments thereunder (Compl., ¶ 53), (5) Defendants did not perform
pursuant to the terms of the parties’ agreement (Compl., ¶ 29), and (6) Plaintiff
has been damaged because it has suffered substantial losses in revenues and
profits and will be required to incur additional costs and expenses as a result
of Defendants’ wrongful conduct (Compl., ¶ 56).
(Missakian v. Amusement Industry, Inc. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 630,
654 [elements of promissory fraud]; Rossberg v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013)
219 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1498 [“each element of a promissory fraud claim must be
alleged with particularity”]; Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th
1039, 1060 [“the falsity of that promise is sufficiently pled with a general
allegation the promise was made without an intention of performance”].)
ORDER
The court overrules defendants
B.A.C.C.O. Mechanical Inc., Jeffrey S. McGowan, and Alex Barrera’s demurrer to
plaintiff Traditional Trio Holdings LLC’s third cause of action for promissory
fraud.
The court orders defendants
B.A.C.C.O. Mechanical Inc., Jeffrey S. McGowan, and Alex Barrera to file an
answer to plaintiff Traditional Trio Holdings LLC’s Complaint within 10 days of
the date of this ruling.
The court orders plaintiff
Traditional Trio Holdings LLC to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court