Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23STCV20209, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20209    Hearing Date: October 15, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.      INTRODUCTION

         On August 28, 2023, plaintiff Brandy Milliner (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Edwin Castro (“Defendant”), Jose Rivera (“Rivera”), and “Reggie” arising from the alleged theft of a winning lottery ticket. Plaintiff alleges that he is a tow truck driver and on or about November 7, 2022, he purchased a lottery ticket scheduled for the $2.04 billion Powerball Lottery draw. (Compl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff alleges that he placed the purchased ticket in his tow truck and that Defendant stole the ticket from his tow truck. (Compl., ¶ 11.) The ticket was then allegedly stolen from Defendant by Rivera, and then stolen from Rivera by “Reggie”, who returned the ticket to Defendant (Compl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges he is the rightful owner of the winning ticket and entitled to the lottery winnings.

          On March 1, 2024, Defendant filed this demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint arguing that Plaintiff’s causes of action for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations failed to state sufficient facts.

Plaintiff filed an opposition brief on July 24, 2024.

Defendant filed a reply brief on July 24, 2024.

II.     LEGAL STANDARDS

A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.)

III.    DISCUSSION

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth causes of action for interference with prospective economic relationship. An element of a claim for interference with prospective economic relations is an existing economic relationship between the plaintiff and a third party that is “reasonably probable” to produce economic advantage. (Youst v. Longo (1987) 43 Cal.3d 64, 71; Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 688, 713.) An expectation that the relationship will be created in the future is not sufficient. (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1164.) 

Plaintiff alleges he had an economic relationship with the California Lottery which Defendant interfered with. (Compl., ¶¶ 41, 50.) However, it is well established that the purchaser of a lottery ticket has no economic relationship with the state lottery prior to the drawing of any numbers. (See Brown v. California State Lottery Com. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1339.) In Brown, the court of appeals explained that “[a] bet does not create a wagering contract between the bettor and the operator of a parimutuel pool [such as a lottery]. [cit.] No contract agreement or bet exists between the bettor and the operator of the pool [i.e., the State]. The transaction is between the participants in the pool, the odds and terms thereof being determined by the participants according to the amount of their payment into the pool.” (Ibid.)

Because no economic relationship between Plaintiff and the lottery commission could have existed at the time of Defendant’s allegedly tortious conduct, i.e., before the winning lottery numbers were drawn, the claims for tortious interference fail. Also, the probability of economic advantage resulting from a lottery ticket purchase is inherently low. Plaintiff’s opposition, which only argues that the defendant need not act with the specific intent of interfering with a business expectancy, does not show how amendment is possible. Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

IV.    CONCLUSION

Defendant’s demurrer to the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. 

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 15th day of October 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.