This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/27/2021 at 07:42:40 (UTC).

ALVARO SEGURA VS FELICIANO SERRANO, M.D., ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/20/2020 ALVARO SEGURA filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against FELICIANO SERRANO, M D . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8883

  • Filing Date:

    10/20/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SEGURA ALVARO

Defendants

SERRANO M.D. FELICIANO

10 DOES 1 TO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

PRINCE DAVID LOUIS

Defendant Attorney

ZUETEL BRYAN

 

Court Documents

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Demurrer to the Complaint

2/10/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Demurrer to the Complaint

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike

2/10/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike

Reply (name extension) - Reply to Opposition to Motion to Strike

2/18/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply to Opposition to Motion to Strike

Reply (name extension) - Reply to Opposition to Demurrer

2/18/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply to Opposition to Demurrer

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

2/25/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

2/26/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

11/23/2020: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/23/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

11/23/2020: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/23/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

10/28/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

10/20/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Summons - Summons on Complaint

10/20/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/20/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10/20/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Complaint - Complaint

10/20/2020: Complaint - Complaint

4 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/24/2023
  • Hearing10/24/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2022
  • Hearing04/19/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: FELICIANO SERRANO, M.D. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10): Filed By: FELICIANO SERRANO, M.D. (Defendant); Result: Overruled; Result Date: 02/25/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2021
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) scheduled for 02/25/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 02/25/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2021
  • DocketReply to Opposition to Demurrer; Filed by: FELICIANO SERRANO, M.D. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2021
  • DocketReply to Opposition to Motion to Strike; Filed by: FELICIANO SERRANO, M.D. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2021
  • DocketOpposition to Defendant's Demurrer to the Complaint; Filed by: ALVARO SEGURA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2021
  • DocketOpposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike; Filed by: ALVARO SEGURA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
4 More Docket Entries
  • 11/23/2020
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) scheduled for 02/25/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: ALVARO SEGURA (Plaintiff); As to: FELICIANO SERRANO, M.D. (Defendant); DOES 1 TO 10 (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 10/27/2020; Service Cost: 207.80; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: ALVARO SEGURA (Plaintiff); As to: FELICIANO SERRANO, M.D. (Defendant); DOES 1 TO 10 (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: ALVARO SEGURA (Plaintiff); As to: FELICIANO SERRANO, M.D. (Defendant); DOES 1 TO 10 (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: ALVARO SEGURA (Plaintiff); As to: FELICIANO SERRANO, M.D. (Defendant); DOES 1 TO 10 (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/19/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/24/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC08883    Hearing Date: February 25, 2021    Dept: 26

Segura v. Serrano, et al.

DEMURRER; MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP §§ 430.31, et seq., 435, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Feliciano A. Serrano, II’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendant Feliciano A. Serrano, II’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint is DENIED.

DEFENDANT IS TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On October 20, 2020, Plaintiff Alvaro Segura (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action for (1) breach of contract; (2) common counts; and (3) fraud against Defendant Feliciano A. Serrano, II (“Defendant”). Defendant filed the instant Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint on November 23, 2020. Plaintiff filed oppositions on February 10, 2021 and Defendant filed replies on February 18, 2021.

Demurrer

The Court finds that the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Demurrer, Zuetel Decl., ¶¶305.) Defendant demurs to the third cause of action for fraud for failure to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).

The third cause of action for fraud is based on concealment and promise without intent to perform. (Compl., ¶¶FR-3, FR-4.) Both counts of fraud are based on a failure to perform on a promise, which must allege (1) promise made regarding a material fact; (2) promisor’s lack of any intention of performing at the time of making the promise, based upon specific factual circumstances beyond contract breach inferring a contemporaneous intent not to perform; (3) the promise was made with intent to deceive or to induce the party to whom it was made to enter into the agreement; (4) the party to whom it was made relied on the promise; (5) the party making the promise did not perform; and (6) the party to whom the promise was made was injured. (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. Tea Sys. Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 575.)

Defendant demurs on the grounds that the fraud cause of action simply realleges the breach of contract cause of action and fails to demonstrate that Defendant had any knowledge that the representations were false or any intention to breach the parties’ agreement at the time it was made. The Complaint alleges in the first cause of action for breach of contract that the parties orally agreed that Plaintiff would rent three units of real property from Defendant for a period of three years for monthly rent of $3,325 and up-front payment of four months’ rent and the security deposit. (Id. at ¶¶BC-1, BC-2.) Despite Plaintiff’ performance, Defendant failed to make the premises available by September 18, 2020 or provide a written lease agreement as promised. (Id. at ¶BC-2.)

The fraud cause of action alleges that Defendant made false promises in connection with the agreement and had no intention of performing his obligations under the agreement. (Id. at ¶¶FR-3, FR-4, Attachment FR-4.) As noted in the elements, Plaintiff must allege specific factual circumstances beyond breach of contract that demonstrate Defendant intended not to perform. “[S]omething more than nonperformance [of the contract] is required to prove the defendant’s intent not to perform his promise.” (Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 18, 29.) For example, the defendant’s intent not to perform may be shown by circumstantial evidence, such as a pattern of making representations that were never performed or failure to even attempt performance. (Id. at 30-31.)

The Complaint alleges that Defendant made no attempt to perform on the contract. Specifically, that “at no time, even after demand was made for performance, did the Defendant ever perform the promised act of leasing the premises to Plaintiff.” (Compl., ¶FR-7.) The Complaint goes on to allege that Defendant continues to market the premises for lease to others. (Ibid.) Under the case law, these facts are sufficient to allege circumstances demonstrating that Defendant had no intention of performing, even at the time the contract was being made.

Therefore, the demurrer to the third cause of action for fraud is overruled.

Motion to Strike

California law authorizes a party’s motion to strike matter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or improper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435; 436, subd. (a).) Motions may also target pleadings or parts of pleadings which are not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules or orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) However, in a court of limited jurisdiction, motions to strike may only be brought on grounds that the allegations do not support the request for relief or damages. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).)

Defendant moves to strike the allegations in support of the request for punitive damages in the Complaint. A request for punitive damages may be made pursuant to Cal. Civil Code 3294, which provides, as follows: “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)

Here, the only basis for a punitive damages claim is the third cause of action for fraud. The Court having overruled the demurrer to the fraud cause of action finds the punitive damages allegations are also adequate.

The Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint is denied.

Conclusion

Defendant Feliciano A. Serrano, II’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendant Feliciano A. Serrano, II’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint is DENIED.

DEFENDANT IS TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.