This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/28/2019 at 10:25:13 (UTC).

DANNY TREBOLD VS ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS UNITED STATES (AGRUS)

Case Summary

On 10/24/2017 DANNY TREBOLD filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS UNITED STATES AGRUS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STUART M. RICE. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2410

  • Filing Date:

    10/24/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STUART M. RICE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

TREBOLD DANNY

Defendant

ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS UNITED STATES...

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

JR. ARTHUR W. FRANCIS

Defendant Attorney

JEROME M. JACKSON ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Case Management Conference

7/5/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

7/16/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Request

8/7/2018: Request

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

8/16/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Proof of Service by Mail

8/24/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Substitution of Attorney

8/28/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Notice

8/28/2018: Notice

Order to Show Cause (Hearing)

8/29/2018: Order to Show Cause (Hearing)

Order to Show Cause (Hearing)

8/29/2018: Order to Show Cause (Hearing)

Minute Order

10/29/2018: Minute Order

Order - Dismissal

10/30/2018: Order - Dismissal

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/30/2018
  • Order - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B, Stuart M. Rice, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2018
  • Minute Order ( (Legacy Event Type : OSC-Failure to File Request for Dism)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Unknown Event Type

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-09-07 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • at 08:29 AM in Department B; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-09-06 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2018
  • OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2018
  • Order to Show Cause Re HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
26 More Docket Entries
  • 02/13/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by DANNY TREBOLD (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by DANNY TREBOLD (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by DANNY TREBOLD (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • Notice of Hearing on Demurrer; Filed by ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS UNITED STATES... (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2017
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by DANNY TREBOLD (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by DANNY TREBOLD (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by DANNY TREBOLD (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • Summons; Filed by DANNY TREBOLD (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by DANNY TREBOLD (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC072410    Hearing Date: July 22, 2020    Dept: M

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. M

DANNY TREBOLD,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

YC072410

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS UNITED STATES (AGRUS),

Defendant.

Hearing Date: July 21, 2020

Moving Parties: Defendant Allianz Global Risks

Responding Party: Plaintiff Danny Trebold

Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving and opposition papers.

RULING

The demurrer is OVERRULED as to the 1st and 2nd causes of action and SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the 3rd cause of action. Defendant is ordered to file an answer within five days.

BACKGROUND

On October 24, 2017, Danny Trebold (self-represented) filed a complaint against Allianz Global Risks United States (AGRUS) for fraud. The “cause of action” was not attached to the complaint as is required by the form complaint at para. 8.

On December 12, 2017, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which did not have the attachment for a cause of action for fraud.

On February 13, 2018, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.

On August 28, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice of unconditional settlement along with a substitution of attorney.

On October 30, 2018, the case was dismissed pursuant to CCP §664.6.

On August 15, 2019, plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney. He is now representing himself.

On August 20, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s ex parte application to vacate the dismissal.

On October 8, 2019, the court sustained defendant’s demurrer to the SAC with leave to amend.

On October 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint.

On February 20, 2020, the court sustained defendant’s demurrer to the TAC with leave to amend to allow plaintiff to plead a different cause of action.

On March 10, 2020, plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint for (1) negligence, (2) bad faith, and (3) intentional tort,

LEGAL AUTHORITY

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228. “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905. “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.

DISCUSSION

Defendant demurs to the Third Amended Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain.

In the Fourth Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that in July 2015, he suffered damages in the form of wrongful debt, as a result of defendant’s conduct. In September 2015, plaintiff began to incur financial property damage, as a result of the wrongful debt. As background, in December 2011, plaintiff and Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (subsidiary of defendant) reached a worker’s compensation settlement. Plaintiff received medical care that was paid for by Medicare, a secondary payer. Those conditional payments were the liability of defendant. In July 2015, plaintiff received a notice from the U.S. Treasury Dept. regarding Medicare’s claim. The Treasury Dept. notified plaintiff that it was acting on behalf of the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services to collect money from him for the Medicare debt. In September 2015, the Treasury Dept. began withholding a portion of plaintiff’s monthly Social Security disability benefits to repay the debt. When plaintiff asked Medicare why they were charging him with the debt that belonged to defendant, they replied that they had not received a response to their inquiry and billing from defendant. Plaintiff wrote a letter to Health and Human Services, which fully explained the case and the improprieties being conducted by the Medicare agency. That effort resulted in a letter from Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which referred to a report from defendant that was deceptive in that it did not divulge the fact that plaintiff received no money for Medicare conditional payments. Defendant failed to uphold their duty to report to Medicare. Plaintiff’s attorney took action by way of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board but the Board ruled that they had no jurisdiction in the matter because Medicare failed to file a lien.

1st cause of action for negligence

Defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to allege facts against defendant to impose liability on it for the acts or omissions of Fireman’s Fund, other than alleging that Fireman’s Fund was its subsidiary.

Defendant also argues that this claim is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Worker’s Compensation Act because it is collateral to or derivative of a personal “injury sustained and arising out of the course of employment” and the reporting to Medicare involves a normal part of the worker’s compensation claims process.

In opposition, plaintiff contends that it used the term “subsidiary” because that is how the California Department of Insurance described them and their parent company when they became wholly owned by AGRUS. Plaintiff asserts that the CDI does not show Fireman’s Fund as a separate legal entity. Further, plaintiff argues that as to worker’s compensation exclusivity, this case does not involve a breach of labor law. Rather, it is a case about violations in servicing of a contract.

The court finds that the allegations are sufficient that through the workers’ compensation settlement, defendant had a duty to properly report to Medicare whether plaintiff received conditional payments and that it failed to do so. As a result, plaintiff suffered damages based on defendant’s omissions. Defendant has not shown that the cause of action is barred by worker’s compensation exclusivity.

The demurrer is OVERRULED.

2nd cause of action for bad faith

Plaintiff alleges that defendant had a duty of good faith in the contract, which required it to perform their duties in a fair manner, not do anything to harm or damage another party to the contract, and not interfere with another party’s right to enjoy the intended benefits of the contract.

The allegations are sufficient.

The demurrer is OVERRULED.

3rd cause of action for intentional tort

Defendant argues that this claim is uncertain, and that if he is attempting to allege fraud, it is deficient.

The allegations are insufficient.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: YC072410    Hearing Date: February 20, 2020    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

DANNY TREBOLD,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

YC072410

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS UNITED STATES (AGRUS),

Defendant.

Hearing Date: February 20, 2020

Moving Parties: Defendant Allianz Global Risks

Responding Party: Plaintiff Danny Trebold

Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, reply, and supplemental opposition papers.

RULING

The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. The court will allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend to plead a different cause of action.

BACKGROUND

On October 24, 2017, Danny Trebold (self-represented) filed a complaint against Allianz Global Risks United States (AGRUS) for fraud. The “cause of action” was not attached to the complaint as is required by the form complaint at para. 8.

On December 12, 2017, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which did not have the attachment for a cause of action for fraud.

On February 13, 2018, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.

On August 28, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice of unconditional settlement along with a substitution of attorney.

On October 30, 2018, the case was dismissed pursuant to CCP §664.6.

On August 15, 2019, plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney. He is now representing himself.

On August 20, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s ex parte application to vacate the dismissal.

On October 8, 2019, the court sustained defendant’s demurrer to the SAC with leave to amend.

On October 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228. “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905. “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.

DISCUSSION

Defendant demurs to the Third Amended Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain.

Using a form complaint, in the TAC, plaintiff asserts a cause of action for fraud. He alleges that around/before July 2016, defendant committed fraud by way of concealment. Defendant concealed a material fact in their reporting to the Medicare administration about details concerning a worker’s compensation case that had been settled between plaintiff and defendant. The material fact, which defendant had a duty to disclose, was that plaintiff did not receive any money from the settlement that was owed to Medicare by defendant. The concealment led the Medicare administration to transfer the debt liability from defendant to plaintiff. The U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, which oversees the Medicare administration, submitted the matter to the U.S. Treasury Dept. for debt collection. The U.S. Treasury Dept. collected on the debt by withholding a portion of plaintiff’s monthly Social Security disability benefits.

The elements of a fraud claim are (1) misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to deceive; and (4) reliance and resulting damage. Vega v. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue (2004) 121 Cal. App. 4th 282, 290.

“[T]he elements of a cause of action for fraud based on concealment are: ‘“(1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.’” Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Ins. Co. (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 830, 850 (citations omitted). Generally speaking, there are four circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud: (1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts. OCM Principal Opportunities Fund v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007)157 Cal. App. 4th 835, 859.

“To withstand demurrer, the facts constituting every element of fraud must be alleged with particularity, and the claim cannot be salvaged by references to the general policy favoring the liberal construction of pleadings.” Goldrich v. Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal. App. 4th 772, 782. The particularity requirement necessitates pleadings 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.

Defendant argues that the allegations are insufficient to show an intent to defraud plaintiff and that he has not alleged what action he took as a result of the concealed fact or how he justifiably relied on defendant’s conduct.

In opposition, plaintiff concedes that “this case does not meet all of the required elements for a fraud cause of action” and requests leave to file an amended complaint containing a different cause of action.

The court finds that the allegations are insufficient to state a claim for fraud by concealment. The demurrer is thus SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The court will allow plaintiff to file an amended complaint asserting a different cause of action.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: YC072410    Hearing Date: February 19, 2020    Dept: SWB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. B

DANNY TREBOLD,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

YC072410

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS UNITED STATES (AGRUS),

Defendant.

Hearing Date: February 20, 2020

Moving Parties: Defendant Allianz Global Risks

Responding Party: Plaintiff Danny Trebold

Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, reply, and supplemental opposition papers.

RULING

The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. The court will allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend to plead a different cause of action.

BACKGROUND

On October 24, 2017, Danny Trebold (self-represented) filed a complaint against Allianz Global Risks United States (AGRUS) for fraud. The “cause of action” was not attached to the complaint as is required by the form complaint at para. 8.

On December 12, 2017, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which did not have the attachment for a cause of action for fraud.

On February 13, 2018, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.

On August 28, 2018, plaintiff filed a notice of unconditional settlement along with a substitution of attorney.

On October 30, 2018, the case was dismissed pursuant to CCP §664.6.

On August 15, 2019, plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney. He is now representing himself.

On August 20, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s ex parte application to vacate the dismissal.

On October 8, 2019, the court sustained defendant’s demurrer to the SAC with leave to amend.

On October 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228. “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905. “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.

DISCUSSION

Defendant demurs to the Third Amended Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain.

Using a form complaint, in the TAC, plaintiff asserts a cause of action for fraud. He alleges that around/before July 2016, defendant committed fraud by way of concealment. Defendant concealed a material fact in their reporting to the Medicare administration about details concerning a worker’s compensation case that had been settled between plaintiff and defendant. The material fact, which defendant had a duty to disclose, was that plaintiff did not receive any money from the settlement that was owed to Medicare by defendant. The concealment led the Medicare administration to transfer the debt liability from defendant to plaintiff. The U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, which oversees the Medicare administration, submitted the matter to the U.S. Treasury Dept. for debt collection. The U.S. Treasury Dept. collected on the debt by withholding a portion of plaintiff’s monthly Social Security disability benefits.

The elements of a fraud claim are (1) misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to deceive; and (4) reliance and resulting damage. Vega v. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue (2004) 121 Cal. App. 4th 282, 290.

“[T]he elements of a cause of action for fraud based on concealment are: ‘“(1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.’” Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Ins. Co. (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 830, 850 (citations omitted). Generally speaking, there are four circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud: (1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts. OCM Principal Opportunities Fund v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007)157 Cal. App. 4th 835, 859.

“To withstand demurrer, the facts constituting every element of fraud must be alleged with particularity, and the claim cannot be salvaged by references to the general policy favoring the liberal construction of pleadings.” Goldrich v. Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal. App. 4th 772, 782. The particularity requirement necessitates pleadings 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.

Defendant argues that the allegations are insufficient to show an intent to defraud plaintiff and that he has not alleged what action he took as a result of the concealed fact or how he justifiably relied on defendant’s conduct.

In opposition, plaintiff concedes that “this case does not meet all of the required elements for a fraud cause of action” and requests leave to file an amended complaint containing a different cause of action.

The court finds that the allegations are insufficient to state a claim for fraud by concealment. The demurrer is thus SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The court will allow plaintiff to file an amended complaint asserting a different cause of action.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.