Eizad vs. Izad

The Court finds that the allegations in the Complaint are generally uncertain.

It is unclear whether Plaintiff’s action is brought pursuant to the terms of the trust or a separate agreement. Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n January 1, 2024, Defendant promised Plaintiff that Defendant was going to use the property of the Eizad Trust – amounting to $1,000,000 (‘the Eizad Trust Property’) -- to invest for the personal benefit of Plaintiff.” However, it is unclear whether this was a written or oral promise or an express or implied promise and, as mentioned earlier, it is unclear whether this promise was in addition to the trust or part of the trust discussed in the Complaint. Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently stated the terms of the promise. Based on these uncertainties, the duties Defendant allegedly owed Plaintiff are uncertain was well.

Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s fraud cause of action lacks the requisite specificity.

Fraud causes of action must be pled with specificity. “...This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom and by what means the representations were tendered.”’ (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.) “This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the false representations were made.” (State ex rel. Edelweiss Fund, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1119, 1136–1137, as modified on denial of reh’g (May 30, 2023), review denied (Aug. 9, 2023) [internal citations omitted].) “The complaint must plead the time, place, and contents of the false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby.”