Motion: Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint. Moving Party Geoffrey Tackeny, Jennifer Tackeny and GMT Real Estate. Responding Party Plaintiffs Edwin Garrovillas and Katrina Apdan.
Ruling: The demurrer by defendants Geoffrey Tackeny, Jennifer Tackeny and GMT Real Estate is sustained with 15 days’ leave to amend as to the Second Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment, Fifth Cause of Action for Fraud and Sixth Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation of the Second Amended Complaint.
The unopposed Request for Judicial Notice by the moving defendants is granted.
Second Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment, Fifth Cause of Action for Fraud and Sixth Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation: “’In California, fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice.’ . . . Thus, a plaintiff must plead facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made.” Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.
Plaintiffs failed again to comply with the above pleading requirements. The causes of action must allege specific conduct attributed to Defendants Geoffrey Tackeny, Jennifer Tackeny and GMT Real Estate.
Third Cause of Action for Violation of Civ. Code § 1102 and Fourth Cause of Action for Violation of Civ. Code § 2079: Plaintiffs allege that the moving defendants wrongfully failed to disclose defects in the property prior to the purchase of said property. However, the Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement provided to Plaintiffs prior to the close of escrow included statements of defects in the home, i.e., “some rooms not permitted.” SAC, Ex B
Plaintiffs also retained an individual and a home inspection company that conducted an inspection of the property, with their report completed on 12-29-13. SAC, ¶¶ 27, 28; Ex C Finally, two weeks prior to the close of escrow, plaintiffs did a walk-through of the property with the moving defendants and became aware of problems with structures on the property. SAC, ¶¶ 30-32
“[A] seller’s agent has no affirmative duty to disclose latent defects unless the agent ‘also knows that such facts are not known to, or within the reach of the diligent attention and observation of the buyer.’” Peake vs. Underwood (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 428, 445