Merchant Capital Source, LLC v. Pima Orthopedic Physicians, LLC, et al.

4:23.) In opposition, Plaintiff also argues that Defendants agreed on a shifting landscape of promises to complete the project but failed to live up to one of the promises. Yet Defendants lacked reasonable ground for believing the promises were true. (Opp., p. 14:19-22 [citing the FAC, at ¶¶ 25-78, 81-85, and 93- 95].) Thus, this claim is based on inaccurate representations of capability, progress, and timelines.

The statements regarding expertise and the present status of the swap are actionable misrepresentations. Plaintiff handed over more money as the time went on and alleges that $15,000 in new parts were “aged-out” and had to be replaced. (FAC, at ¶ 45.) The status of the work is a representation about present facts, that induced Plaintiff to spend money on parts that he otherwise would not have spent. Thus, the FAC has sufficiently alleged a claim. The demurrer as to the fourth cause of action is overruled.

Unfair Business Practice (Bus & Prof. Code, § 17200, et seq.) (Fifth Cause of Action)

Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (“UCL”) prohibits unfair competition, including unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts. (Cel-Tech Comm., Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tele. Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.) By defining “unfair competition” to include any unlawful act or practice, the UCL permits violations of other laws to be treated as independently actionable as unfair competition. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.)

Here, Plaintiff relies on the negligent misrepresentation claim as the basis for the unfair business practices. Thus, the court overrules the demurrer on this derivative claim.

The case management conference is continued to October 9, 2026, at 9 am, in this Department.

Defendants shall give notice of the ruling of the continued case management conference.