This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2019 at 22:44:40 (UTC).

SAMUEL WONG ET AL VS MACIE WANG ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/07/2017 SAMUEL WONG filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MACIE WANG. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CAROLYN B. KUHL and ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6272

  • Filing Date:

    12/07/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CAROLYN B. KUHL

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

WONG SHIRLEY

GUDMUNDSEN KIMI XIAO

WONG SAMUEL

FUNG BUN HEY

LAU MICHAEL

FUNG NUI HEI

CHEN JENNY

LIU EUGENE

Defendants and Respondents

WANG MACIE

LAU LEE

NG WING

AMAXI NUTRITION PRODUCTS INC

DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE

LAU MARGARET

AMAXI INVESTMENT COMPANY

LAU JONATHAN C.M.

LAU MARGARET AKA MARGARET MIN YEE

WANG MACIE AKA MACY WANG AKA SEPIDEH K WANG

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LIEBER STANLEY P.

Defendant Attorney

SABBAH MARK S

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/8/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

3/9/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

DECLARATION OF NUI HEI FLING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

7/17/2018: DECLARATION OF NUI HEI FLING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS' SUMMARY OF THE CASE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

7/17/2018: PLAINTIFFS' SUMMARY OF THE CASE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

DECLARATION OF BUN HEY FUNG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

7/17/2018: DECLARATION OF BUN HEY FUNG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

Minute Order

7/17/2018: Minute Order

RULING

9/25/2018: RULING

REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

9/25/2018: REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL LAU IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

9/25/2018: DECLARATION OF MICHAEL LAU IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

DECLARATION OF KIMI MAO GUDMUNDSEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

9/25/2018: DECLARATION OF KIMI MAO GUDMUNDSEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

DECLARATION OF NUI HEI FUNG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

9/25/2018: DECLARATION OF NUI HEI FUNG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

DECLARATION OF BUN HEY FUNG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

9/25/2018: DECLARATION OF BUN HEY FUNG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

9/25/2018: REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default

10/12/2018: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default

Unknown

11/28/2018: Unknown

Demurrer

3/29/2019: Demurrer

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

1/12/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

SUMMONS

12/7/2017: SUMMONS

69 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (to Complaint) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (to Complaint) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (of Defendants, Macie Wang, Amaxi Investment Company and Amaxi Nutritional Products, Inc., to Complaint) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (to Complaint) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
137 More Docket Entries
  • 02/08/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Samuel Wong (Plaintiff); Shirley Wong (Plaintiff); Nui Hei Fung (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2018
  • at 00:00 AM in Department 309; (Order-Complex Determination; Case Determined to be non-Complex) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-01-09 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2017
  • PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Samuel Wong (Plaintiff); Shirley Wong (Plaintiff); Nui Hei Fung (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC686272    Hearing Date: January 03, 2020    Dept: 48

(1) – (6) DEMURRERS TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (x6)

MOVING PARTY: (1) – (6) Defendants Macie Wang; Jonathan Lau; Margaret Lau; Wing Ng; Amaxi Investment Company; Amaxi Nutritional Products, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) – (6) Plaintiffs Samuel Wong, Shirley Wong, Nui Hei Fung, Bun Hey Fung, Kimi Xiao Gudmundsen, Eugune Liu, Michael Lau and Jenny Chen

PROOF OF SERVICE:

ANALYSIS

Defendant Macie Wang’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Meet and Confer

The Declaration of Mark Sabbah reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to meet and confer efforts in good faith. This satisfies CCP § 430.41(a)(3)(B).

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the California Secretary of State Articles of Incorporation of a General Stock Corporation filed October 29, 2013 naming Amaxi Nutrition Products, Inc. is GRANTED. The Court may take judicial notice of a business’ entity’s corporate status as reflected in the Secretary of State’s records. Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1286; Pedus Bldg. Servs. v. Allen (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 152, 156 n.2.

Discussion

1. 23rd Cause of Action (Fraud – Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 44th Cause of Action (Fraud – Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Nui Hei Fung).

“The mere failure to carry out a promise is not a tort, and it is therefore essential, in pleading fraud consisting of a false promise, to allege the elements of fraud.” Maynes v. Angeles Mesa Land Co. (1938) 10 Cal.2d 587, 589.

Fraud must be pleaded with specificity rather than with “ ‘general and conclusory allegations.’ ” (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184 [132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 490, 65 P.3d 1255].)  The specificity requirement means a plaintiff must allege facts showing how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made, and, in the case of a corporate defendant, the plaintiff must allege the names of the persons who made the representations, their authority to speak on behalf of the corporation, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when the representation was made. (Lazar v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 645.)

We enforce the specificity requirement in consideration of its two purposes. The first purpose is to give notice to the defendant with sufficiently definite charges that the defendant can meet them. (Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216 [197 Cal. Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660].) The second is to permit a court to weed out meritless fraud claims on the basis of the pleadings; thus, “the pleading should be sufficient ‘ “to enable the court to determine whether, on the facts pleaded, there is any foundation, prima facie at least, for the charge of fraud.” ’ ” (Id. at pp. 216–217.)

West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 793.

Here, the 23rd and 44th causes of action still fail to allege exactly what was said, by which Defendant, when and in what manner (orally or in writing) these misrepresentations, and why such representation was known to be false when made.

Plaintiffs must allege at least the substance of at least one oral or written representation sufficient to support a fraud cause of action against Defendant Macie Wang. Indeed, if such representation was made in writing, today’s technology should make retrieving the exact written representation a feasible task. Notably, both Macie Wang and Margaret Lau are alleged to have made oral and written representations. Plaintiffs must attribute exact statements to each of the Defendants, the method of transmission, and specify to which Plaintiffs these statements were made.

The demurrer to the 23rd and 44th causes of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

2. 24th Cause of Action (Fraud – Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong) and 45th (Fraud – Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Nui Hei Fung)

The same pleading specificity requirement applicable to fraud applies to pleading negligent misrepresentation. Cadlo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 513, 519.

Here, the 24th and 45th causes of action still fail to allege exactly what was said, by which Defendant, when and in what manner (orally or in writing) these misrepresentations, and why such representation was known to be false when made.

Moreover, it appears that Plaintiffs are alleging a negligent false promise to record the deed of trust. California does not recognize a cause of action for a negligent false promise. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 159.

The demurrer to the 24th and 45th causes of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend, unless Plaintiffs can demonstrate a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.

3. 52nd Cause of Action (Civil RICO—18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(c) by all Plaintiffs)

“[S]tatutory causes of action must be pleaded with particularity.” Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790.

Plaintiffs must specify which Defendant committed the acts of mail fraud by depositing or receiving any matter or thing for the purpose of executing a scheme or artifice or attempting to do so.

The demurrer to the 52nd cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Defendant Jonathan Lau’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Meet and Confer

The Declaration of Mark Sabbah reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to meet and confer efforts in good faith. This satisfies CCP § 430.41(a)(3)(B).

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the California Secretary of State Articles of Incorporation of a General Stock Corporation filed October 29, 2013 naming Amaxi Nutrition Products, Inc. is GRANTED. The Court may take judicial notice of a business’ entity’s corporate status as reflected in the Secretary of State’s records. Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1286; Pedus Bldg. Servs. v. Allen (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 152, 156 n.2.

Discussion

Defendant Jonathan C.M. Lau’s Demurrer

1. 2nd Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 5th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 14th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 17th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 20th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 26th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 29th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 32nd Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Jenny Chen and Michael Lau); 35th Cause of Action (Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Kimi Xiao Gudmundsen); 38th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Kimi Xiao Gudmundsen); 41st Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Nui Hei Fung); 47th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Bun Hey Fung); 50th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Eugene Liu).

For the reasons discussed above re: the demurrer of Marcie Wang, these fraud-based causes of action fail to allege exactly what was said, by which Defendant, when and in what manner (orally or in writing), and why such representation was known to be false when made.

Plaintiffs must allege at least the substance of at least one oral or written representation sufficient to support a fraud cause of action against this Defendant. Plaintiffs must attribute exact statements to each of the Defendants, the method of transmission, and specify to which Plaintiffs these statements were made.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the 2nd, 5th, 14th, 17th, 20th, 26th, 29th, 32nd, 35th, 38th, 41st 47th and 50th causes of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

2. 3rd Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 6th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 15th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 18th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 21st Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 24th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 27th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 30th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 33rd Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Jenny Chen and Michael Lau); 36th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Kimi Xiao Gudmundsen); 42nd Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Nui Hei Fung); 48th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Bun Hey Fung); and 51st Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Eugene Liu).

For the reasons discussed above re: the demurrer of Marcie Wang, these fraud-based causes of action fail to allege exactly what was said, by which Defendant, when and in what manner (orally or in writing), and why such representation was known to be false when made.

Moreover, it appears that Plaintiffs are alleging a negligent false promise to record the deed of trust. California does not recognize a cause of action for a negligent false promise. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 159.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the 3rd, 6th, 15th, 18th, 21st, 24th, 27th, 30th, 33rd, 36th, 42nd, 48th and 51st causes of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend, unless Plaintiffs can demonstrate a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.

3. 52nd Cause of Action (Civil RICO—18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(c) by all Plaintiffs).

For the reasons discussed above re: the demurrer of Marcie Wang, the 52nd cause of action does not plead the elements of a RICO civil claim with sufficient particularity, including specifying which Defendant committed the acts of mail fraud by depositing or receiving any matter or thing for the purpose of executing a scheme or artifice or attempting to do so.

The demurrer to the 52nd cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Defendant Margaret Lau’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Meet and Confer

The Declaration of Mark Sabbah reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to meet and confer efforts in good faith. This satisfies CCP § 430.41(a)(3)(B).

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the California Secretary of State Articles of Incorporation of a General Stock Corporation filed October 29, 2013 naming Amaxi Nutrition Products, Inc. is GRANTED. The Court may take judicial notice of a business’ entity’s corporate status as reflected in the Secretary of State’s records. Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1286; Pedus Bldg. Servs. v. Allen (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 152, 156 n.2.

Discussion

1. 2nd Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 5th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 8th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 11th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 14th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 17th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 20th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 23rd Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 26th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 29th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 32nd Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Jenny Chen and Michael Lau); 38th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Kimi Xiao Gudmundsen); 41st Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Nui Hei Fung); 44th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Nui Hei Fung); 47th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Bun Hey Fung); 50th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Eugene Liu).

For the reasons discussed above re: the demurrer of Marcie Wang, these fraud-based causes of action fail to allege exactly what was said, by which Defendant, when and in what manner (orally or in writing), and why such representation was known to be false when made.

Plaintiffs must allege at least the substance of at least one oral or written representation sufficient to support a fraud cause of action against this Defendant. Plaintiffs must attribute exact statements to each of the Defendants, the method of transmission, and specify to which Plaintiffs these statements were made.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th, 23rd, 26th, 29th, 32nd, 38th, 41st, 44th, 47th and 50th causes of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

2. 3rd Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 6th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 9th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 12th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 15th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 18th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 21st Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 24th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 27th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 30th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 33rd Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Jenny Chen and Michael Lau); 36th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Kimi Xiao Gudmundsen); 39th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Kimi Xiao Gudmundsen); 42nd Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Nui Hei Fung); 45th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Nui Hei Fung); 48th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Bun Hey Fung); and 51st Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Eugene Liu).

For the reasons discussed above re: the demurrer of Marcie Wang, these fraud-based causes of action fail to allege exactly what was said, by which Defendant, when and in what manner (orally or in writing), and why such representation was known to be false when made.

Moreover, it appears that Plaintiffs are alleging a negligent false promise to record the deed of trust. California does not recognize a cause of action for a negligent false promise. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 159.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st, 24th, 27th, 30th, 33rd, 36th, 39th, 42nd, 45th, 48th and 51st causes of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend, unless Plaintiffs can demonstrate a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.

3. 52nd Cause of Action (Civil RICO—18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(c) by all Plaintiffs).

For the reasons discussed above re: the demurrer of Marcie Wang, the 52nd cause of action does not plead the elements of a RICO civil claim with sufficient particularity, including specifying which Defendant committed the acts of mail fraud by depositing or receiving any matter or thing for the purpose of executing a scheme or artifice or attempting to do so.

The demurrer to the 52nd cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Defendant Wing Ng’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Meet and Confer

The Declaration of Mark Sabbah reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to meet and confer efforts in good faith. This satisfies CCP § 430.41(a)(3)(B).

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the California Secretary of State Articles of Incorporation of a General Stock Corporation filed October 29, 2013 naming Amaxi Nutrition Products, Inc. is GRANTED. The Court may take judicial notice of a business’ entity’s corporate status as reflected in the Secretary of State’s records. Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1286; Pedus Bldg. Servs. v. Allen (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 152, 156 n.2.

Discussion

1. 8th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 11th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 38th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Kimi Xiao Gudmundsen).

For the reasons discussed above re: the demurrer of Marcie Wang, these fraud-based causes of action fail to allege exactly what was said, by which Defendant, when and in what manner (orally or in writing), and why such representation was known to be false when made.

Plaintiffs must allege at least the substance of at least one oral or written representation sufficient to support a fraud cause of action against this Defendant. Plaintiffs must attribute exact statements to each of the Defendants, the method of transmission, and specify to which Plaintiffs these statements were made.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the, 8th, 11th, and 38th causes of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

2. 9th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 12th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 39th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Kimi Xiao Gudmundsen).

For the reasons discussed above re: the demurrer of Marcie Wang, these fraud-based causes of action fail to allege exactly what was said, by which Defendant, when and in what manner (orally or in writing), and why such representation was known to be false when made.

Moreover, it appears that Plaintiffs are alleging a negligent false promise to record the deed of trust. California does not recognize a cause of action for a negligent false promise. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 159.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the 9th, 12th, and 39th causes of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend, unless Plaintiffs can demonstrate a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.

3. 52nd Cause of Action (Civil RICO—18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(c) by all Plaintiffs).

For the reasons discussed above re: the demurrer of Marcie Wang, the 52nd cause of action does not plead the elements of a RICO civil claim with sufficient particularity, including specifying which Defendant committed the acts of mail fraud by depositing or receiving any matter or thing for the purpose of executing a scheme or artifice or attempting to do so.

The demurrer to the 52nd cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Defendant Amaxi Investment Company’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Meet and Confer

The Declaration of Mark Sabbah reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to meet and confer efforts in good faith. This satisfies CCP § 430.41(a)(3)(B).

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the California Secretary of State Articles of Incorporation of a General Stock Corporation filed October 29, 2013 naming Amaxi Nutrition Products, Inc. is GRANTED. The Court may take judicial notice of a business’ entity’s corporate status as reflected in the Secretary of State’s records. Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1286; Pedus Bldg. Servs. v. Allen (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 152, 156 n.2.

Discussion

1. 8th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 11th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 38th Cause of Action (Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Kimi Xiao Gudmundsen).

For the reasons discussed above re: the demurrer of Marcie Wang, these fraud-based causes of action fail to allege exactly what was said, by which Defendant, when and in what manner (orally or in writing), and why such representation was known to be false when made.

Plaintiffs must allege at least the substance of at least one oral or written representation sufficient to support a fraud cause of action against this Defendant. Plaintiffs must attribute exact statements to each of the Defendants, the method of transmission, and specify to which Plaintiffs these statements were made.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the, 8th, 11th, and 38th causes of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

2. 9th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 12th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiffs Samuel Wong and Shirley Wong); 39th Cause of Action (Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation by Plaintiff Kimi Xiao Gudmundsen).

For the reasons discussed above re: the demurrer of Marcie Wang, these fraud-based causes of action fail to allege exactly what was said, by which Defendant, when and in what manner (orally or in writing), and why such representation was known to be false when made.

Moreover, it appears that Plaintiffs are alleging a negligent false promise to record the deed of trust. California does not recognize a cause of action for a negligent false promise. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 159.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the 9th, 12th, and 39th causes of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend, unless Plaintiffs can demonstrate a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.

3. 52nd Cause of Action (Civil RICO—18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(c) by all Plaintiffs).

For the reasons discussed above re: the demurrer of Marcie Wang, the 52nd cause of action does not plead the elements of a RICO civil claim with sufficient particularity, including specifying which Defendant committed the acts of mail fraud by depositing or receiving any matter or thing for the purpose of executing a scheme or artifice or attempting to do so.

The demurrer to the 52nd cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Defendant Amaxi Nutritional Products, Inc.’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Meet and Confer

The Declaration of Mark Sabbah reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to meet and confer efforts in good faith. This satisfies CCP § 430.41(a)(3)(B).

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the California Secretary of State Articles of Incorporation of a General Stock Corporation filed October 29, 2013 naming Amaxi Nutrition Products, Inc. is GRANTED. The Court may take judicial notice of a business’ entity’s corporate status as reflected in the Secretary of State’s records. Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1286; Pedus Bldg. Servs. v. Allen (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 152, 156 n.2.

1 52nd Cause of Action (Civil RICO—18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(c) by all Plaintiffs).

For the reasons discussed above re: the demurrer of Marcie Wang, the 52nd cause of action does not plead the elements of a RICO civil claim with sufficient particularity, including specifying which Defendant committed the acts of mail fraud by depositing or receiving any matter or thing for the purpose of executing a scheme or artifice or attempting to do so.

The demurrer to the 52nd cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.