CAPITAL ACCOUNTING PARTNERS, LLC VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CAPITAL ACCOUNTING DEMURRER ON 3RD AMENDED CVRI2500309 PARTNERS, LLC VS COMPLAINT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Tentative Ruling: The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer with a final leave to amend, within 30 days.

5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED CVRI2507431 ARVIZU VS FCA US LLC COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling: The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the sixth cause of action with thirty days leave to amend. The Court finds the Motion to Strike is MOOT.

Plaintiff’s allegations are generically alleged, and most are based on information and belief. (First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 22, 24, 25, 26, and 73.a.) A fraud claim cannot be based on information and belief unless facts upon which the belief is founded are also set forth in the pleading. (Carney v. Simmonds (1957) 49 Cal.2d 84, 99; Findley v. Garrett (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 166, 177.) This has not occurred. While Plaintiff alleges that FCA was aware and knew of the vehicle’s defects, it fails to provide specific factual allegations to support this assertion or the facts upon which the belief is founded. There are also no specific factual allegations regarding superior knowledge, only conclusory allegations.

FCA also asserts that Plaintiff does not allege a transactional relationship, which would give rise to a duty to disclose. Where material facts are known to one party and not to the other, failure to disclose them is not actionable fraud unless there is some relationship between the parties which gives rise to a duty to disclose such known facts. (Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1187.) A relationship between the parties is present if there is “some sort of transaction between the parties,” i.e., between a seller and buyer, employer and prospective employee, doctor and patient, and parties to a contract. (Id.)

The FAC alleges that Plaintiff entered into a warranty agreement with FCA pertaining to the vehicle it manufactured. (FAC, ¶ 7.) A contract can form the basis of a transactional relationship. FCA fail to point to any binding authority that such a relationship does not constitute a transaction between the parties for the purposes of fraudulent concealment. As such, this argument fails.

Because this cause of action fails to meet the heightened pleading requirements for fraud, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer should be sustained as to the sixth cause of action with leave to amend.