Judge Steven J. Kleifield, Case 22STCV19102 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven J. Kleifield, Case: 22STCV19102, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 22STCV19102 Hearing Date: April 17, 2023 Dept: 57

Israel Tadesse alleges that he entered into a written contact with Defendant LA Taxi Cooperative ("LATC") under which Tadesse agreed to pay dues to LADC in exchange for certain services from LATC. Tadesse asserts that one of those service was providing Tadesse, upon his request, recordings made on a video camera that LATC installed on Tadesse's vehicle that he used as a taxi.

Tadesse alleges that he was involved in a traffic accident while driving his taxi on June 13, 2018, and that on or about July 9, 2018, he requested that LATC provide a recording of the accident from the LATC-installed video camera on the taxi but that LATC refused. On June 13, 2022, Tadesse sued LATC for (1) breach of contract based on the alleged failure of LATC to provide him with the recording of the accident he requested, and (2) fraud based on allegations that LATC never intended to provide video recordings to Tadesse and induced him to enter into the agreement through the false promise that it would provide the recording upon his request.

LATC has demurred to both causes of action. The Court's tentative ruling is to overrule the demurrer as to the cause of action for breach of contract, and to sustain the demurrer as to the cause of action for fraud albeit with leave to amend.

As to the cause of action for breach of contract, Tadesse alleges that his agreement with LATC was in writing. He acknowledges that he does not have a copy of the agreement. Nor does it seem that Tadesse has set forth the contract verbatim in the complaint. This is not fatal to Tadesse's breach of contract claim at the pleading stage, however. All that is required of plaintiffs asserting a breach of contract claim is to plead the "legal effect" of the contract; there is no need to attach a copy of the contract to the complaint or to plead the contract's precise terms. (Miles v. Deutsche Bank National Bank Trust Co. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 394, 401-402.) Tadesse has met that requirement here. The legal effect of the contract, as alleged in the complaint, is that LATC was required to provide Tadesse with a copy of the video footage of the traffic incident in question in exchange for the dues that he alleges he paid. Tadesse's breach of contract claim was filed within the applicable four year statute of limitations. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 337(a).) As alleged in the complaint, LATC breached the contract on July 9, 2018 by failing to provide the video footage. He sued LATC just shy of four years thereafter, on June 13, 2022.

Tadesse's fraud claim, however, appears to be barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 338(d).) Tadesse alleges that LATC fraudulently induced him to enter the written agreement by making a promise to provide video camera footage that it never intended to keep. Based on the allegations in the complaint, Tadesse discovered this purported fraud on July 9, 2018, when he requested that LATC provide him the footage of the accident and LATC refused to do so. The discovery of the fraud occurred nearly four years before Tadesse brought suit. Accordingly, his fraud claim is time-barred, and LATC's demurrer to the claim is sustained. The Court is sustaining the demurrer with leave to amend, however. That is because in his opposition to the demurrer, Tadesse contends that there are additional facts that could be pled to support his fraud claim -- namely, that he requested that LATC provide him the video on multiple occasions after July 9, 2018, and that it was not until April 1, 2022 that it became evident to him that LATC would not honor the promise it made to provide the video. In other words, based on these additional facts that Tadesse says could be pled, his fraud claim accrued on April 1, 2022 and is not time-barred because he filed suit just two and one-half months thereafter. Tadesse thus has satisfied his burden of demonstrating that there is a reasonable possibility that the statute of limitations-based defect in his fraud claim can be cured by amendment. (City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare (2007) 41 Cal.4th 859, 865.)

Tadesse shall file and serve his amended complaint within 21 days of the hearing on LATC’s demurrer.