Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 22VECV01190, Date: 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

Case Number: 22VECV01190    Hearing Date: November 21, 2022    Dept: T

            [TENTATIVE] ORDER:  Defendants Mohamad Reshad, D.D.S. and Dr. Reshad DDS Inc. dba ArtLab Dentistry’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Introduction

            Defendants Mohamad Reshad, D.D.S. (Reshad) and Dr. Reshad DDS Inc. dba ArtLab Dentistry’s (ArtLab) (collectively, Defendants) demurred to Plaintiff Christine Forrester, D.D.S.’s (Plaintiff) First Amended Complaint (FAC.)  Defendants placed into issue the second cause of action (COA) for intentional misrepresentation, third COA for negligent misrepresentation, and fourth COA for concealment (collectively, Fraud Claims.)  The Opposition was due November 7, 2022, and Plaintiff, in pro per, did not file any Opposition.

            Discussion 

Defendants argued that the Fraud Claims are not supported by specific and particular facts, especially as to the ArtLab, a corporation.  (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 74;  Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645 [i.e., how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.];  Tarmann v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157 [i.e., names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.])  Under the second and third COAs for intentional and negligent misrepresentation, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant made misrepresentations as to: (1) Plaintiff’s diagnosis of periodontal disease, (2) treatment/procedures related to implants, (3) dental records, and (4) Defendants’ qualifications to perform the dental procedures.  (FAC pars. 60 and 65.)  Under the fourth COA for concealment, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant concealed the negligent results of the implant, the negligent treatment, and the existence of periodontal disease.  (FAC par. 70.)  Plaintiff provided additional facts in the “Statement of Facts” section of the FAC.  (FAC pars. 13-52.)  However, the facts are only a chronology regarding the alleged negligent treatment provided by Defendants and the subsequent failures of the crowns, implants, and bite adjustments.  Specifically, Plaintiff was treated in April 2018, January 28, 2019, and February 18, 2019.  However, there are no facts pled to show if the misrepresentations occurred at these times, how they were made, where they were made, and by what means they were tendered.  Specifically, as to the misrepresentations related to Defendants’ qualifications, Plaintiff alleged the statements that were made on various websites.  (FAC pars. 2-3.)    However, there are no facts alleged showing that the websites are generated by Defendants.  The FAC is also devoid of any facts to support the fraud claims against the corporation, ArtLab.  Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing: names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.  For these pleading defects, Defendants’ demurrer is persuasive. 

Because Plaintiff failed to file an Opposition, there is no showing that these pleading defects can be cured. 

The Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.