DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24621047·sf·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 1 year agoSUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THOMAS PORTUGAL VS. HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT

Hearing date
Aug 14, 2025
Department
301
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Demurrer rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffTHOMAS PORTUGAL
DefendantHIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC
DefendantACIES INVESTMENTS FUND I, L.P.

Ruling

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Thursday, August 14, 2025, line 12, 6 - DEFENDANT ACIES INVESTMENTS FUND I, L.P. DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT

Defendant Acies Investments Fund I, L.P.'s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (FAC) is sustained with leave to amend. The FAC does not allege a basis for liability by Acies for the acts undertaken by codefendant High 5 Entertainment, LLC, other than as an investor. This alone is insufficient to create UCL or CLRA liability.

Plaintiff Thomas Portugal contends that Acies is liable under an aiding and abetting theory. "Liability may be imposed on one who aids and abets the commission of an intentional tort if the person knows the other's conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other to so act." (Schulz v. Neovi Data Corp. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 86, 93 [citation simplified].)

Portugal alleges that Acies provides financial support to High 5 as an investor but does not allege facts supporting the knowledge element. Acies also challenges the substantial assistance element. For clarity to the parties, the court's view is that this element is adequately pled. Portugal states the amount of the investment and that it came at a time when High 5 was in dire need of investment.

Acies asks the court not to grant leave to amend. That course is available only where it appears that leave to amend would be futile. The court cannot say that it would be futile.

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.

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. = (302/CVA) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share