This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/26/2020 at 02:12:18 (UTC).

LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ VS SARA DE LA CRUZ

Case Summary

On 11/14/2019 LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against SARA DE LA CRUZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0587

  • Filing Date:

    11/14/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

DE LA CRUZ LUCIANO

DE LA CRUZ SARA

Defendants

LIU CAI

CHANG DIANE

LONG DRAGON REALTY GROUP INC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BAYLEY GUY RICHARD

Defendant Attorney

MARTIN PETER A.

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Plaintiffs' Non-Opposition to Demurrer

9/17/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Plaintiffs' Non-Opposition to Demurrer

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration re Request for Relief under CCP 473 re: non filing of Opposition

9/22/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration re Request for Relief under CCP 473 re: non filing of Opposition

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

9/24/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

9/24/2020: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/15/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike Fee)

6/19/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike Fee)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike Fee) of 06/19/2020

6/19/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike Fee) of 06/19/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

7/8/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike) of 07/08/2020

7/8/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike) of 07/08/2020

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

4/22/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of peter a. martin in support of request for automatic extension

3/13/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of peter a. martin in support of request for automatic extension

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/14/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

11/14/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

11/14/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

11/14/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

11/14/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

4 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/17/2022
  • Hearing11/17/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2021
  • Hearing05/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2020
  • DocketStipulation and Order for Leave to File First Amended Complaint; Signed and Filed by: LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ (Plaintiff); Sara De La Cruz (Plaintiff); As to: Diane Chang (Defendant); Long Dragon Realty Group Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2020
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 09/24/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court on 09/24/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketDeclaration re Request for Relief under CCP 473 re: non filing of Opposition; Filed by: LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ (Plaintiff); Sara De La Cruz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2020
  • DocketNotice of Plaintiffs' Non-Opposition to Demurrer; Filed by: Diane Chang (Defendant); Long Dragon Realty Group Inc (Defendant); As to: LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ (Plaintiff); Sara De La Cruz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Long Dragon Realty Group Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020
  • DocketHearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike scheduled for 09/24/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

    Read MoreRead Less
5 More Docket Entries
  • 04/22/2020
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by: Diane Chang (Defendant); Long Dragon Realty Group Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2020
  • DocketDeclaration of peter a. martin in support of request for automatic extension; Filed by: Long Dragon Realty Group Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/17/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ (Plaintiff); Sara De La Cruz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ (Plaintiff); Sara De La Cruz (Plaintiff); As to: Cai Liu (Defendant); Diane Chang (Defendant); Long Dragon Realty Group Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC10587    Hearing Date: September 24, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:    Thu., September 24, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: De La Cruz v. De La Cruz COMPL. FILED: 11-14-19

CASE NUMBER:     19STLC10587 DISC. C/O:    04-13-21

NOTICE:   OK DISC. MOT. C/O:     04-28-21

TRIAL DATE: 05-13-21

PROCEEDINGS:     DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Long Dragon Realty Group, Inc. and Diane Chang

RESP. PARTY: None

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.41, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Long Dragon Realty Group, Inc. and Diane Chang’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is SUSTAINED. Plaintiffs are GRANTED 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT.

SERVICE

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September 22, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of September 22, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On November 14, 2019, Plaintiffs Luciano De La Cruz and Sara De La Cruz (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an action for breach of contract and fraud against Defendants Cai Liu (“Liu”), Diane Chang (“Chang”), and Long Dragon Realty Group, Inc. (“Long Dragon”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

On March 13, 2020, Defendants Chang and Long Dragon’s counsel filed a Declaration in Support of Request for Automatic 30-day extension pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a)(2). Defendants Chang and Long Dragon thereafter filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (the “Demurrer”) on April 22, 2020.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

 

II. Legal Standard

 

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its

case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to

affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of

America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges

facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not

“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the

complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded

factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of

which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,

however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.

Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

A general demurrer may be brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted or under section 430.10, subdivision (a), where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

 

III. Discussion

A. Meet and Confer Requirements

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the meet and confer declaration submitted in support of Defendant Chang and Long Dragon’s Demurrer is insufficient. As noted above, the demurring party is required to meet and confer in person or by telephone. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) (Italics added.) Defendant Chang and Long Dragon’s counsel states he sent a two-page letter via fax and regular mail to Plaintiffs’ counsel on March 6, 2020 and requested a response, but none was ever provided. (Dem., Martin Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendants’ counsel did not make any further efforts to contact Plaintiffs’ counsel via telephone once the letter was sent in early March. Although the Court finds Defendants’ counsel’s meet and confer efforts insufficient, this determination is not grounds to overrule a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., 430.41, subd. (a)(4).) In addition, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court exercises its discretion to issue the following ruling on the merits.

B. Second Cause of Action – Fraud

Defendants Chang and Long Dragon demur to the second cause of action for fraud on the basis that it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute an action against them. (Notice of Dem., p. 3:2-8.)

“Fraud has five elements: a misrepresentation; the knowledge the misrepresentation is false; the intent to induce another’s reliance on the misrepresentation; justifiable reliance; and damages.” (Cohen v. Kabbalah Centre Internat., Inc. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 13, 20.) To allege a claim for negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must allege “(1) the misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact, (2) without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true, (3) with intent to induce another’s reliance on the fact misrepresented, (4) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation, and (5) resulting damage.” (Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. The Americana at Brand, LLC (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1239.) A cause of action for fraud must be alleged with specificity such that Plaintiff pleads facts that “show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.) In addition, “[t]he requirement of specificity in a fraud action against a corporation requires the plaintiff to allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.” (Tarmann v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.)

Plaintiffs’ action arises from a residential lease agreement for 1146 Cortez Rd., Arcadia, CA 91007 (the “Property”) entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendant Liu. (Compl., Exh. A.) They allege that on August 6, 2018, Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that both the main house and the converted garage on the Property were legal and fit for habitation, that the converted garage was not actually permitted and had to be converted back to a garage per orders from city inspectors, that Defendants had no reasonable grounds for believing the representations regarding the habitability of the converted garage were true, that Plaintiffs acted in justifiable reliance upon Defendants’ representations, and that Plaintiffs would not have rented the property or would not have agreed to the rental amount in the rental agreement. (Compl., pp. 4-5.)

However, these allegations are insufficient. Plaintiffs fail to allege who made the representation (i.e., Defendant Liu, or Defendant Chang as an Agent of corporate Defendant Long Dragon), how the allegations were made (i.e., verbally or in writing), and to whom the representations were made (i.e., to one or both Plaintiffs). (See Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)

Thus, Defendants Chang and Long Dragon’s Demurrer as to the second cause of action for fraud is SUSTAINED. Plaintiffs are GRANTED 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT.

 

IV. Conclusion & Order

 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Long Dragon Realty Group, Inc. and Diane Chang’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is SUSTAINED. Plaintiffs are GRANTED 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.