Defendants’ Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint
Defendants PS BUSINESS PARKS LP and TREY TRASK demur to both the 1st and 2nd causes of action in the Second Amended Complaint filed on 9/8/16 by Plaintiffs D’GRACES GROUP LLC and GODOFREDO CATAROJA.
- 1st COA: Intentional Misrepresentation
SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.
The first cause of action essentially alleges a false promise. Specifically, plaintiff alleges defendant made a promise to plaintiff that he “would be allowed to later amend the lease agreement to remove [plaintiff] from the lease and substitute on the lease D’Graces as the lessee.” (SAC para. 11.) No representation apparently was made as to what “later” meant or whether any conditions, such as D’Graces’s creditworthiness, would have to be met before such a substitution would be allowed.
“To be enforceable, a promise must be definite enough that a court can determine the scope of the duty and the limits of performance must be sufficiently defined to provide a rational basis for the assessment of damages.” Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 770.
In the present situation, if plaintiff had brought a breach of contract action, the court would be unable to enforce the promise for lack of specificity. Similarly, “[p]romises too vague to be enforced will not support a fraud claim any more than they will one in contract.” Rochlis v. Walt Disney Co. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 201, 213, overruled on other grounds in Turner v. Anheuser–Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1251; see also Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 770,
- 2nd COA: Bus. & Prof. Code 17200
SUSTANIED as to the 2nd cause of action.
Defendants argue correctly that Plaintiffs has failed to properly plead a violation of section 17200.