Imed Hsini v. Mohsen Ghariani, et al.

(Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse: Dept. S25) September 3, 2026 DEPARTMENT S25 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Imed Hsini v. Mohsen Ghariani, et al. LASC Case No. 24LBCV00194 Hearing Date: September 11, 2024 Request for Default Judgment by Court

In preparation for the September 11, 2024 default judgment hearing, the court has identified several concerns with Plaintiff's request:

Request for Entry of Default was entered on May 9, 2024 which is less than 30 days after service of the summons and complaint to Defendant Danielle Canissa and CDW Logistics, LLC. (C.C.P. Sec.587);

Plaintiff checked the wrong box and should have checked "Court Judgment" in the "Request For" section on the 1st page. (See 7/29/2024 Request for Entry of Default/Judgment);

No DOEs dismissal filed;

No attached/adequate and/or authenticated exhibits provided with Plaintiff's Declaration. Exhibits should demonstrate, e.g. costs for title and insurance for two vehicles, power of attorney, agreement entered into with Defendants to purchase trucks and provide logistic and shipping services to clients;

No contractual or statutory basis provided by Plaintiff as to recovery of attorney fees. Also, attorney fees requested is more than what is allowed in a contract for recovery of reasonable attorney fees under Local Rule of the Court, rule 3.214(a);

Prayer for complaint does not specify damages claimed;

No notice of punitive damages as required under Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 425.11, subd. (c). Appears Plaintiff may be waiving punitive damages based upon proposed judgment;

Proposed Judgment (UD-100) incorrect calculations as to attorney fees and prejudgment interest calculations.

Group of America, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Moving Party: Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("Defendant") Responding Party: Plaintiff Tad Zereyhoune ("Plaintiff") Tentative Ruling

Defendant seeks judgment on the pleadings as to the sixth cause of action for fraudulent inducement - concealment. No opposition has been received.

This Court concludes the economic loss rule bars the sixth cause of action. Traditionally, the economic loss rule barred tort recovery for purely economic losses arising from a breach of contract absent a showing of personal injury or property damage.(Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2022) 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 834.)" [T]he economic loss rule provides: Where a purchaser's expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he bought is not working properly, his remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he has suffered only 'economic losses.'

The economic loss rule requires a purchaser to recover in contract for purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations, unless he can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise. Quite simply, the economic loss rule 'prevents the law of contract and the law of tort from dissolving one into the other."(Food Safety Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1130 [citing Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988].)

In Dhital, a Song-Beverly action, the Court of Appeal addressed the economic loss rule in the context of fraudulent inducement by concealment.(Dhital v. Nissan N. Am., Inc. (2022) 84 Cal. App. 5th 828, 840.)

The Court held concealment-based claims for fraudulent inducement are not barred by the economic loss rule "because a defendant's conduct in fraudulently inducing someone to enter a contract is separate from the defendant's later breach of the contract or warranty provisions that were agreed to."(Id. at p. 841.)

But more recently, the Supreme Court offered further guidance on the economic loss rule. In Rattagan v. Uber