JANE FENG ET AL VS. WONG & ASSOCIATES

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC24612559 - June 10, 2025 Hearing date: June 10, 2025 Case number: CGC24612559 Case title: JANE FENG ET AL VS. WONG & ASSOCIATES Case Number: | | CGC24612559 | Case Title: | | JANE FENG ET AL VS. WONG & ASSOCIATES | Court Date: | | 2025-06-10 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEFENDANT WONG & ASSOCIATES DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT (TENTATIVE RULING PART 2 OF 3) | Rulings: | | Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, June 10, 2025, line 13, DEFENDANT WONG & ASSOCIATES DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT (TENTATIVE RULING PART 2 OF 3)

Plaintiffs' second cause of action is labeled as a fraud cause of action. They state that their landlord accused them of note paying rent, they went to Wong for help, and he "failed to use his skill to fulfill his duty as their lawyer." (SAC para. 2.) Here, Plaintiffs do not allege a misrepresentation by Wong. Their complaint sounds in legal malpractice rather than fraud. The elements of a legal malpractice action are "(1) breach of the attorney's duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (3) actual loss or damage resulting from the negligence." (Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 699.)

But Plaintiffs have not alleged a causal connection between Wong's failure to use his skill and any damages. The court identified these elements in its prior order yet Plaintiffs have not pleaded facts to satisfy them. CCP 430.41, subdivision (e)(1), provides: "a complaint or cross-complaint shall not be amended more than three times, absent an offer to the trial court as to such additional facts to be pleaded that there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured to state a cause of action." This is Plaintiffs' second amendment. The court sustains the demurrer with leave to amend as to the second cause of action. Plaintiffs shall amend within 10 days of entry of this order.

Plaintiffs' third cause of action is labeled as a fraud cause of action. Here, Plaintiffs allege that their prior home had poor and dangerous conditions, and they asked Wong to ask the landlord to correct the conditions. Wong "did not fulfill his duty to represent the Plaintiffs to resolve their living conditions." (SAC para. 3.) Again, Plaintiffs do not allege the elements of either fraud or legal malpractice. They identify no misrepresentation or any breach of the attorney's duty to the same level of professional skill as other members of the profession commonly exercise. It does not necessarily breach an attorney's professional duties to fail to obtain the result their client desires. The demurrer to the third cause of action is sustained with leave to amend this cause of action within 10 days of entry of this order.