KARINA ORTIZ v. AIDAN DANIEL ALAGAPPAN, et al.

during this litigation to try to support the misrepresentations about its rental applications. " Defendants argue that part of Plaintiffs' fraud claim relies on statements made in litigation which are protected by the litigation privilege. While that may be true, Defendants cannot demurrer to only a portion of a claim.

Defendants separately argue that Plaintiffs ' allegations are not plead with the required particularity for fraud claims. The Court agrees. Each element in a cause of action for fraud must be factually and specifically alleged.¿(Perias v. GMAC Mortgage, Inc. ¿(2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 429, 43 4.)¿This is to provide the defendant with notice and to give the court enough information to assess whether there is a foundation for the charge of fraud.¿(Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. ¿(1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 21 6.)

In addition to the above, when the allegations are made against corporate defendants, plaintiff must also allege with¿particularity¿the "who, what, when, what authority" elements for corporations. (Lazar v. Superior Court ¿(1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 64 5;¿ Tarmann v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. ¿(1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 15 7.)

The FAC refers to " false representations that Plaintiffs were provided all required disclosures under the ICRAA and given a meaningful opportunity to request and obtain a copy of any investigative consumer report procured in connection with the application and tenant screening process. " There are no allegations as to who made the representations, their authority to speak on behalf of a corporate defendant, to whom the representations were made, when they were made, or by what means they were made. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' allegations lack the required specificity, and the Court sustains the demurrer to the fraud claim with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant's Demurrer with 20 days' leave to amend as to the false advertising and fraud claims. Otherwise, the Court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the remaining causes of action without leave to amend.

DATED: August 21, 2026 ___________________________ Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

County of Los Angeles - West District Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 20 5 KARINA ORTIZ, Plaintiff, v. AIDAN DANIEL ALAGAPPAN, et al, Defendant. | Case No.: 2 5 S M CV 0 5061 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 order RE: plaintiff's motion to quash DEPOSITION SUBPOENA issued by defendant to first priority management services |

This hearing is on Plaintiff's motion to quash Defendant's deposition subpoena to First Priority Management Services. This Department's rules require that on a discovery motion, the parties must meet and confer to informally resolve their dispute, and when that fails, the parties must attend an informal discovery conference (IDC) . There is no record of an IDC on the issues raised in Plaintiff's motion to quash. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to quash without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 21, 2026 ___________________________ Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 26SMCV02748 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: 205 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles - West District Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 20 5 ADANY SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendant s. | Case No.: 2 6 SMCV0 2 748 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendant S UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER-CA, LLC AND RASIER, LLC'S motion to strike Plaintiff's punitive damages claim |

BACKGROUND

This is a negligence and negligent hiring case. On May 3, 2026, Defendant Osvaldo Del Rio drove his car into Plaintiff Adany Sanchez's car. (FAC P.P. 1, 5.) Plaintiff alleges that a few hours earlier, Del Rio struck a deputy with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department during a traffic stop and fled the scene. (Id. at P. 3.)

Later that same day, Plaintiff alleges that Del Rio accessed the Uber platform and picked up a passenger. While he was driving the passenger, police identified his car and attempted to initiate a traffic stop. (Id. at P. 4.) Plaintiff claims that Del Rio attempted to evade the police, and during the course of that pursuit, collided with Plaintiff's car. (Id. at P.P. 5-6.) Del Rio also held his passenger hostage for hours until he was ultimately arrested. (Id. at P. 7.)

As to the Uber defendants, Plaintiff alleges that they allowed Del Rio access to the Uber platform after he had assaulted a police officer, or alternatively that the corporate defendants did not hav e a system in place to prevent drivers like Del Rio from accessing the platform after they committed a crime, and these failings constitute malice, oppression, or fraud. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that " officers, directors, or managing agents of the UBER DEFENDANTS knew of the above - described conduct from Defendant OSVALDO DEL RIO ... and adopted or approved that conduct after it occurred. " (Id. at P.P. 5 0-51.)

The operative first amended complaint ("FAC") asserts causes of action for negligence and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention. Both claims are alleged against the Uber Defendants. This hearing is on the Uber Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's punitive damages allegations. Uber argues