Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV15839, Date: 2025-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV15839    Hearing Date: April 9, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant AIDS Healthcare Foundation, d/b/a Healthy Housing Foundation  

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff James Camper

(1)   Demurrer to Complaint

(2)   Motion to Strike Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with the demurrer and motion to strike.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff James Camper (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Healthy Housing Foundation on June 25, 2024, alleging four causes of action for (1) violation of the unfair competition law, (2) violation of the false advertising law, (3) fraudulent misrepresentation, and (4) breach of implied contract.

Defendant AIDS Healthcare Foundation, d/b/a Healthy Housing Foundation (“Defendant”) now moves the court for an order (1) sustaining its demurrer to each cause of action alleged by Plaintiff, and (2) striking from the Complaint various requests for relief.

DEMURRER

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action for violation of the unfair competition law because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that he “has lost money or property as a result of [Defendant’s] unfair competition” and therefore has not alleged facts establishing that he has standing to bring this cause of action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204; Majd v. Bank of America, N.A. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1304 [“Only a plaintiff who has ‘suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition has standing to sue’”].)  Although Plaintiff has alleged (and has argued in his opposition) that he lost time and the opportunity to obtain adequate housing (Compl., ¶ 40), that allegation does not “establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury . . . .”  (Majd, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 1304 [internal quotation marks omitted] [emphasis in original].)

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action for violation of the false advertising law because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that he suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s alleged violation of the false advertising law and therefore has not alleged facts establishing that he has standing to bring this cause of action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17535 [“Actions for injunction under this section may be prosecuted . . . by any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of a violation of this chapter”]; Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 321-322 [“under the false advertising law, in materially identical language [to the language in the unfair competition law], standing extends to ‘any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of a violation of this chapter’”].)  

            The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the third cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged facts, with the requisite particularity, establishing that he suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s alleged misrepresentations, and instead has alleged, in conclusory fashion, that he “is entitled to remedies, including damages and an injunction compelling Defendant to cease the behavior” (Compl., ¶ 64).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Aton Center, Inc. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1245 [“The elements of intentional misrepresentation ‘are (1) a misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance, (4) actual and justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage’”]; City of Vista v. Robert Thomas Securities, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 882, 888 [“In a fraud cause of action, damage is defined as ‘actual monetary loss’”].)  The court notes that Plaintiff has alleged, and argued in his opposition, that he was damaged because Plaintiff’s personal information was received, stored, sold, and otherwise inappropriately used by Defendant to gain funding (Compl., ¶ 61).  However, Plaintiff has not explained how his submission of personal information constitutes damages as a result of Defendant’s alleged misrepresentations.

            The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action for breach of implied contract because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that the parties entered into an implied contract, and instead appears to allege only that Defendant made false advertisements, on which Plaintiff relied in submitting his application (Compl., ¶¶ 67-68).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Civ. Code, § 1621 [“An implied contract is one, the existence and terms of which are manifested by conduct”]; Rose v. County of San Benito (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 688, 714 [“a contract implied in fact consists of obligations arising from a mutual agreement and intent to promise where the agreement and promise have not been expressed in words”] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Aton Center, Inc., supra, 93 Cal.App.5th at p. 1230 [elements of breach of implied contract].)

The burden is on the plaintiff “to articulate how it could amend its pleading to render it sufficient.”¿ (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc., supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 290.)¿ To satisfy that burden, a plaintiff “must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.”¿ (Goodman, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 349.)  The court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to articulate how he can amend (1) the first through third causes of action to allege that he lost money or property or suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s alleged conduct, and (2) the fourth cause of action to allege facts establishing that the parties entered into an implied contract.  The court therefore sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint without leave to amend.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendant moves the court for an order striking from the Complaint (1) the references to “damages” in paragraphs 43 and 51, and (2) the requests for punitive damages in paragraphs 75 and 78 of the prayer.

The court has sustained Defendant’s demurrer to each cause of action alleged in the Complaint without leave to amend for the reasons set forth above.  The court therefore denies as moot Defendant’s motion to strike.

ORDER

            The court sustains defendant AIDS Healthcare Foundation, d/b/a Healthy Housing Foundation’s demurrer to plaintiff James Camper’s Complaint without leave to amend.

            The court denies as moot defendant AIDS Healthcare Foundation, d/b/a Healthy Housing Foundation’s motion to strike.

            The court orders defendant AIDS Healthcare Foundation, d/b/a Healthy Housing Foundation to prepare, serve, and lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal within 10 days from the date of this order.

            The court orders that the Final Status Conference, set for August 14, 2026, is vacated.

            The court orders that trial, set for August 26, 2026, is vacated.

            The court sets an Order to Show Cause re dismissal (after sustaining demurrer without leave to amend) for hearing on July 29, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 53.

            The court orders defendant AIDS Healthcare Foundation, d/b/a Healthy Housing Foundation to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 9, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court