Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 20PSCV00316, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. R at 909-802-1117 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 20PSCV00316    Hearing Date: August 10, 2022    Dept: R

Lion Tools LLC et al. v. Jia Fu Chang et al. (20PSCV00316)

______________________________________________________________________________

(1)   Defendants Jia Fu Chang’s and Sufan Fei’s Demurrer to the Complaint of Lion Tools LLC and Weijin Hu

(2)   Defendants Jia Fu Chang’s and Sufan Fei’s Motion to Strike the Complaint of Lion Tools LLC and Weijin Hu

            Responding Party: Plaintiff

Tentative Ruling

(1)   Defendants Jia Fu Chang’s and Sufan Fei’s Demurrer to the Complaint of Lion Tools LLC and Weijin Hu is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

(2)   Defendants Jia Fu Chang’s and Sufan Fei’s Motion to Strike the Complaint of Lion Tools LLC and Weijin Hu is MOOT.

Background

Plaintiffs Lion Tools LLC (“Company”) and Weijin Hu (“Plaintiff Hu”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege the following against Defendants Jia Fu Chang (“Defendant Chang”): Plaintiff Hu operates Lion Tools LLC and Defendant Chang is an employee of the Company. Defendant Chang later left the Company but came back around June 2018 to “spread the rumor to Plaintiff Lion Tools LLC’s employees, customers and vendors that Plaintiff's company was established for immigration purposes and all the employees shall leave Plaintiff's company because the company would not go far.” (FAC P11.)

On May 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, The Healing Center, Sufan Fei, Tielin Yang and Does 1 through 10 for:

            (1) Defamation and

            (2) Fraud.

On April 29, 2022, the court sustained Defendants’ demurrer with 20 days leave to amend.

On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Jia Fu Chang, aka Caffrey Chang, an individual; The Healing Center, a California company; Sufan Fei, an individual; Tielin Yang, an individual and DOES 1 to 10 for

1.      Defamation and

2.      Fraud

On June 30, 2022, Defendants Jia Fu Chang, aka Caffrey Chang, and Sufan filed the instant Demurrer with a motion to strike.

On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Opposition.

Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (CCP §§ 430.30, 430.70.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A “demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [internal citations omitted].) 

Discussion

At the outset, the court notes that the FAC remains virtually identically to the complaint. Therefore, the court’s analysis too remains the same.

Defamation

The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage. (See Wong v. Tai Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369.)  

Statements of facts are actionable, while statements of opinion are not. (See Wong v. Tai Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369.) However, “where an expression of opinion implies a false assertion of fact, the opinion can constitute actionable defamation.” (Id. at 1370.) “The critical question is not whether a statement is fact or opinion, but ‘whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact.’” (Id. (quoting McGarry v. University of San Diego (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 97, 113).) “‘To determine whether a statement is actionable fact or nonactionable opinion, courts use a totality of the circumstances test of whether the statement in question communicated or implies a provably false statement of fact.’” (Id. (quoting McGarry, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at 113).)  

“[T]he determination of whether the allegedly defamatory statement constitutes fact or opinion is a question of law.” (Selleck v. Globe International, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1123, 1133.)  

(See Carlisle v. Fawcett Publications, Inc. (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 733, 741 (stating that a publication may be clearly defamatory as to an individual even without reference to that individual if there is sufficient reference and that it is not necessary that every listener understand the defamatory meaning, so long as there are some who reasonably do).) 

Here, the complaint merely provides conclusions that the statements were (1) untrue and (2) a large financial loss was incurred in no amount less than $150,000. Moreover, the allegations do not state that purported defamatory statements were directed at Weijin Hu, rather that the statements were directed at the company.

Therefore, as there are no facts to support the cause of action, the demurrer is SUSTAINED.

b. Fraud

The elements of fraud are: “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 184.) In California, fraud, including negligent misrepresentation, must be pled with specificity. (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184.) “The particularity demands that a plaintiff plead facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1469.

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint focuses on the alleged incident wherein Defendant Chang claimed he suffered a work injury and supported a medical report from the Healing Center in support thereof. However, according to the complaint, that was a false medical report as “the injury was caused by Defendant Jia Fu Chang himself years ago and Defendant the Healing Center knew of it.”

Therefore, as the allegations fail to be pled with particularity and are rather based on conclusions, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer as to this cause of action.

Conclusion