Alexander Mota v. Mitchell Castillo, et al.

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff's second cause of action for fraud on the basis that Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.10, subd. (e).) To plead fraud, a plaintiff must show: "(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or 'scienter'); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage." (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts demonstrating his intent to defraud. "[S]omething more than nonperformance is required to prove the defendant's intent not to perform his promise." (Tenzer v.

Superscope, Inc. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 18, 30 [quoting People v. Ashley (1954) 42 Cal.2d 246, 263.) "To maintain an action for deceit based on a false promise, one must specifically allege and prove, among other things, that the promisor did not intend to perform at the time he or she made the promise and that it was intended to deceive or induce the promisee to do or not do a particular thing." (Tarmann v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 159.) Making a promise with an unrealistic intent to perform does not constitute an actionable false promise. (Ibid.)

Additionally, fraud must be pled with specificity. (Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, 843-844.) In other words, a plaintiff must plead facts showing "how, when, where, to whom, and by what means" any alleged misrepresentations are made. (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn. Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384 (Alfaro).) Here, Plaintiff loaned Defendant $50,000, and additional money subsequently. (FAC P.P. 7-8.) She alleges that on July 19, 2022, Defendant represented he would repay the loan in full, and that such a representation was false. (Id.

P.P. 18, 38-39.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant knew the representation was false when made and that he intended for her to rely on the representation. (Id. P.P. 41-42.) In doing so, Plaintiff fails to plead Defendant's intent to defraud with the required specificity. Plaintiff suggests that Defendant promised to repay the loan and intended for Plaintiff to rely on that promise, but Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant had no intention of repaying the loan whatsoever. Fraud and breach of contract are distinct causes of action: one does not become liable for fraud simply by breaching a contract, in effect breaking a promise.

A breach of contract may constitute promissory fraud in circumstances where a promise is made without any intention of performing it. (Civ. Code, Sec. 1572.) But Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant lacked any intention of repaying the loan; rather, she maintains that Defendant's statement that he would repay the loan was false because he did not repay the loan and that he intended her to rely on his statement. She states that Defendant planned to cause her injury, but this does not rise to the level of specificity required under Alfaro when pleading fraud.

Thus, Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts in support of her cause of action for fraud. Accordingly, Defendant's demurrer is sustained. Conclusion: Defendant's demurrer is sustained. Plaintiff is granted 20 days' leave to amend. Case Number: 24STCV28302 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: 400 MOTION TO COMPEL The Court tenders the following tentative decision in the matter Alexander Mota v. Mitchell Castillo, et al., Los Angeles County

Superior Court case number 24STCV28302, set for hearing on September 10, 2026. Alexander Mota (Plaintiff) moves for an order compelling Athena Parking, Inc. (Defendant) to serve responses to its form interrogatories, set one (FROGs). Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $3,435. Plaintiff's motion is denied. When a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or requests for production, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response. (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) Additionally, sanctions are imposed against a party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories or requests for production. (Id., Sec.Sec. 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Sanctions may also be imposed for misuse of the discovery process, which includes failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery. (Id., Sec. 2023.010, subd. (d).) Here, Plaintiff served the relevant FROGs on Defendant on June 10, 2026. (Valenzuela Decl.

P. 4.) Responses were due by July 14, 2026. (Id. P. 5.) No responses were served on that day. (Id. P. 7.) Defendant requested an extension on July 9, but received no response. (Domeyer Decl. P. 4, Ex. 2.) Defendant requested a second extension on July 28, but once again received no response. (Id. P. 5.) Plaintiff filed the present motion to compel that same day. Defendant served verified responses on August 20, 2026. (Id. P. 6.) Thus, the present motion to compel is proper, but responses need not be ordered because they have been provided.

However, Plaintiff may still be entitled to sanctions. Plaintiff requests a total of $3,435 in sanctions regarding its motion to compel. "The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290, subd. (c).)

Here, Defendant does not contest that it served late responses and has thus unsuccessfully opposed the present motion. However, the present circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Defendant requested extensions from Plaintiff but received no response, not even the threat of a motion. And Defendant provided responses before the hearing date for the present motion. Thus, the Court finds that it would be unjust to impose monetary sanctions on Defendant after its good faith efforts at informal resolution went ignored.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied. Conclusion: Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied. | Home -->)" -->