TANG vs ZHANG, et al.

25CV117650: TANG vs ZHANG, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Demurrer filed by Tu Quang Le (Defendant); eXp REALTY OF CALIFORNIA INC. (Defendant) in Department 517

Tentative Ruling - 09/08/2026 Keith Fong

The Demurrer filed by eXp REALTY OF CALIFORNIA INC., Tu Quang Le on 06/25/2026 is Sustained with Leave to Amend.

Defendants Tu Quang Le and eXp Realty of California, Inc.’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendants Tu Quang Le and eXp Realty of California, Inc.’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Nathan Tang (“Plaintiff”) brings this action various parties, including Tu Quang Le (“Le”) and eXp Realty of California, Inc. (“eXp”), who acted as Plaintiff’s real estate agent and broker, respectively in connection with the June 2023 purchase of a condominium unit located at 1318 B Street #207, Hayward, California. During the escrow process, Plaintiff’s lender raised concerns about balcony inspections at the condominium complex and sought related homeowners’ association (“HOA”) inspection reports. The HOA initially gave ambiguous responses, despite already having received a report identifying severe structural problems with multiple balconies, including Plaintiff’s unit.

On December 9, 2025, the Court overruled Le and eXp’s demurrer to the Third (Negligent Misrepresentation) and Fifth (Constructive Fraud) Causes of Action.

On May 21, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) filed on May 26, 2026 alleges (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Negligence; (3) Negligent Misrepresentation; (4) Fraudulent Concealment; (5) Constructive Fraud; (6) Breach of Contract; and (7) Fraud.

eXp now demurs to the Seventh Cause of Action for Fraud for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. eXp concurrently moves to strike paragraph 123 and the last sentence of the Prayer section requesting punitive damages against eXp.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of factual allegations in a complaint. (Title Ins. Co. v. Comerica Bank-California (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 800, 807.) A plaintiff must plead facts as are necessary to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of her claims to provide defendant with notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 570.) A court should not sustain a general demurrer unless 25CV117650: TANG vs ZHANG, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Demurrer filed by Tu Quang Le (Defendant); eXp REALTY OF CALIFORNIA INC. (Defendant) in Department 517 the complaint liberally construed fails to state a cause of action on any theory. (Kramer v.

Intuit Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 574, 578.) On a demurrer, the court accepts the truth of material facts properly pleaded in the operative complaint, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Hacker v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 270, 276.) Facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be. (Id. at p. 280, citations omitted.)

The court may strike any “irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading,” or may strike out all or any part of a pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a rule of court, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) “Unless a contract or statute provides otherwise, each party to a lawsuit must pay its own attorney fees.” (Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1601, citing C.C.P. § 1021.)

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

Plaintiff is reminded that his papers must include page numbering as required by Rules of Court, rule 2.109.

DISCUSSION

The elements of a claim for fraudulent concealment are (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact to plaintiff; (3) defendant intended to defraud plaintiff; (4) plaintiff was unaware and would not have acted had plaintiff known of the concealed fact; and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment. (Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 124, 162.)

A claim for intentional misrepresentation requires (1) a misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) actual and justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Chapman v. Skype Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 230-231.) “The essential elements of a court for negligent misrepresentation are the same except that it does not require knowledge of falsity but instead requires a misrepresentation of fact by a person who has no reasonable grounds for believing it to be true.” (Id. at p. 231, internal citations omitted.)

A cause of action for fraud “must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645; Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1614.) To satisfy “ ‘[t]his particularity requirement,’ ” a plaintiff must plead “ ‘facts which “show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” ’ ” (Lazar v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 645; e.g. Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v.

Blue Cross of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 821, 838-39 [the pleadings must allege, how the statements were made, when the statements were made, where the statements were made, to whom the statements were made and the means by which they were made].) The specificity requirement applies to both affirmative misrepresentation and concealment claims. (Cansino v. Bank of Am. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1472.) The general

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV117650: TANG vs ZHANG, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Demurrer filed by Tu Quang Le (Defendant); eXp REALTY OF CALIFORNIA INC. (Defendant) in Department 517 policy of liberal construction of the pleadings does not apply to fraud claims. (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 989.) Allegations must be sufficiently specific such that “the court can weed out nonmeritorious actions on the basis of the pleadings.” (Id., internal citations omitted.)

eXp contends that Plaintiff fails to allege (1) what representation pertaining to supervision was made to Plaintiff; (2) when the representation was made; (3) where the representation was made; (4) who the representation as made to; (5) how and/or by what means the representation was tendered; and (6) how Plaintiff detrimentally relied upon said representation.

The SAC alleges that eXp “created an illusion of ‘supervision’ through its virtual platform, but no ‘actual supervision’ existed in reality. (SAC ¶ 100.) The SAC alleges that eXp knew that it held itself as a supervising broker of Defendant Le to Plaintiff and the public, but that was a false representation. (Id. ¶¶ 101-102, Exh. 1.) The SAC cites the attached Exhibit 1, the purchase agreement and escrow instructions, which states that buyer’s brokerage firm, eXp, is the broker of the buyer. (SAC Exh. 1, ¶ 2B.)

The SAC alleges that eXp “perpetrated a fraud on Plaintiff by ‘pretending’ to supervise” Defendant Le. (SAC ¶ 120, emphasis omitted.) The SAC alleges that Plaintiff actually and justifiably relied on the representation that Le was supervised by eXp, and when he encountered issues in the transaction, he relied on Le’s advice, believing that eXp was aware of the issues and gave Le proper instructions. (SAC ¶ 103.)

The allegations in the Seventh Cause of Action fail to allege what specific representation by eXp regarding supervision of Le was made to Plaintiff. While Plaintiff contends that the fact that the purchase agreement listed that eXp is the broker of the buyer, it does not state that eXp was a supervisory broker. Plaintiff’s arguments in Opposition that such information “cannot mean anything else” other than a supervisory broker are not grounded in law. (Clary v. City of Crescent City (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 274, 294 [court not required to consider points not supported by citation to authorities.].) In the absence of such representation, Plaintiff has not adequately pled the remaining elements as required to state a cause of action for fraud.

To the extent that Plaintiff relies on an exhibit attached to counsel’s declaration submitted with his opposition papers, the Court cannot consider extrinsic evidence on a demurrer.

MOTION TO STRIKE

eXp moves to strike Paragraph 123 of the SAC, which states the following: “Defendant EXP REALTY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., first perpetrated a FRAUD on Plaintiff (as listed above) and in current litigation continued to provide false discovery responses that are completely debunked in deposition. Punitive damages are necessary to punish Defendant EXP REALTY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., and to compensate Plaintiff, and protect others from this conduct.”

eXp contends that Paragraph 123 is improper and not drawn in conformity with California law as discovery responses and deposition testimony is protected by the litigation privilege set forth in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV117650: TANG vs ZHANG, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Demurrer filed by Tu Quang Le (Defendant); eXp REALTY OF CALIFORNIA INC. (Defendant) in Department 517 Civil Code § 47(b). Plaintiff contends that the litigation privilege protects litigants and witnesses against subsequent tort actions and does not encompass false discovery responses in present litigation.

The litigation privilege promotes effective judicial proceedings by encouraging attorneys to zealously protect their clients’ interests. (Finton Construction, Inc. v. Bidna & Keys, APLC (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 200, 211-212.) It applies to any publication permitted by law in the course of a judicial proceeding to achieve the objects of the litigation, and immunizes defendants from tort liability, including claims for fraud. (Id.)

The litigation privilege applies to any communication (1) made in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or relation to the action. (Gallanis-Politis v. Medina (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 600, 616-617.) Defendant’s discovery responses served in this litigation here meet all four elements such that the litigation privilege applies and cannot be pleaded as a basis for Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. (Crossroads Investors, L.P. v.

Federal National Mortgage Assn. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 757, 778-779, 787 [interrogatory responses protected activity to which litigation privilege applies].) The litigation privilege applies even where, as here, the discovery responses are alleged to be false. (Herterich v. Peltner (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1132, 1141 [litigation privilege extends to fraudulent statements, even when made to a court, if they were made in furtherance of litigation].)

eXp further contends that if the Court construes Plaintiff’s Seventh Cause of Action for Fraud as constructive fraud, or sustains the demurrer, the last sentence in the Prayer for Relief should also be stricken. In light of the Court’s sustaining of eXp’s concurrently filed demurrer, the Court further grants the motion to strike as to the last sentence of the Prayer regarding punitive damages against eXp.

CONCLUSION

Defendant eXp’s Demurrer to the Seventh Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendant eXp’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED.

If Plaintiff can do so in good faith, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to allege facts with requisite specificity to state a claim for fraud and for punitive damages against eXp.

Plaintiff’s amended pleading shall be filed and served by September 21, 2026. (C.R.C. rule 3.1320(g).) Plaintiff MAY NOT include in the amended complaint any causes of action that are not asserted in the earlier complaint. (See Patrick v. Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995, 1015.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV117650: TANG vs ZHANG, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Demurrer filed by Tu Quang Le (Defendant); eXp REALTY OF CALIFORNIA INC. (Defendant) in Department 517

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT

Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed"

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812

Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose)

Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d

Join by SIP

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV117650: TANG vs ZHANG, et al. 09/10/2026 Hearing on Demurrer filed by Tu Quang Le (Defendant); eXp REALTY OF CALIFORNIA INC. (Defendant) in Department 517 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com

Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812