| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT
Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Monday, September 15, 2025, line 3, DEFENDANT WONG & ASSOCIATES DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Jane Feng and Zhen Zhou have on June 23, 2025 what is styled as a Second Amended Complaint but is actually a third amended complaint. Defendant Wong & Associates demurs. The court sustains the demurrer to the second and third causes of action without leave to amend.
The first and fourth causes of action allege fraud by defendant in failing to provide promised legal services (first cause of action) and misrepresenting a settlement agreement to plaintiffs and thereby inducing them to sign it (fourth cause of action). These causes of action are not at issue on this demurrer.
The second cause of action alleges that Wong tried to complete a case as quickly as possible. Although it is styled as a fraud claim, it does not disclose any misrepresentations. In addition, it states merely that plaintiffs suspect fraud. This pleading lacks particularity, which is required for fraud pleading.
The third cause of action alleges that the plaintiffs hired Wong to remedy living conditions in their former home but someone else corrected the problem instead by contacting the housing inspection department. Here, too, the pleading is styled as a fraud claim but does not disclose any misrepresentations. The pleading also lacks particularity. Moreover, the court notes that the first cause of action, as to which a demurrer was previously overruled, claims that Wong promised to provide legal services he did not provide. To the extent the second and third causes of action describe similar failings, they are adequately encompassed in the first cause of action.
Plaintiffs' opposition brief describes a single representation rather than multiple engagements. Plaintiffs offer no additional facts they could plead on amendment. The court sustains the demurrer to the second and third causes of action without leave to amend.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. = (301/CVA) | |