Qu v. Univ. of So. Cal. CA2/3 (2013) · DecisionDepot
Qu v. Univ. of So. Cal. CA2/3
California Court of Appeal Nov 27, 2013 No. B247933Unpublished
Filed 11/27/13 Qu v. Univ. of So. Cal. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
WANZI QU et al., B247933
Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC484543) v.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Michael M. Johnson, Judge. Affirmed.
Alan Burton Newman, Alan Burton Newman and Sigalit Shoghi for Plaintiffs
and Appellants.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Debra Wong Yang, Kahn A. Scolnick, Ross Halper
and Jennifer E. Rosenberg for Defendant and Respondent.
_______________________________________
Plaintiffs and appellants Wanzi Qu, Xiaohong Fei, Xiyong Wu and Meinan Yin
(collectively, plaintiffs) appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant and respondent
University of Southern California (USC) following the trial court’s sustaining of USC’s
demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiffs contend
that the trial court erred in concluding that their complaint did not allege facts showing
that USC was liable for negligence and fraud. We disagree and affirm.
“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.) The
elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim are similar except “in a claim for
negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff need not allege the defendant made an
intentionally false statement, but simply one as to which he or she lacked any
reasonable ground for believing the statement to be true. [Citations.]” (Charnay v.
Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 184.) When alleging fraud, “general and
conclusory allegations [will] not suffice,” rather, each element “must be pled
specifically.” (Lazar v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 645.)
Here, the second amended complaint’s intentional and negligent
misrepresentation claims were based on USC’s representations that (1) it was ranked
among the safest of universities and colleges, (2) it had “one of the most comprehensive
proactive campus and community safety programs in the nation,” and (3) it provided
24-hour law enforcement services on campus and “in surrounding neighborhoods.” The
court sustained USC’s demurrer on the grounds that plaintiffs “provided no detail as to
how the statements are false,” but simply “allege[d] that USC’s statements were false by
simply inserting the word ‘not’ in front of each representation.”
10
Plaintiffs now contend only that “since the neighborhood surrounding USC is in
a high crime area, it is not true as Respondent claims that USC is ‘ranked among the
safest of US universities and colleges.’ ”1 Plaintiffs have still not pointed to any alleged
facts pertaining to USC’s ranking in relation to other schools. That the neighborhood
surrounding USC has a high crime rate does not suggest that USC's representation that
some third party ranked it as a relatively safe school is inaccurate, only that the ranking
itself may be inaccurate. Therefore, plaintiffs have not shown that USC misrepresented
its ranking. As the second amended complaint does not allege any facts supporting the
allegation that USC’s representations were false, the demurrer was properly sustained
on this ground.
b. Plaintiffs Did Not Allege Facts Showing a Causal Connection Between the Alleged Misrepresentations and the Death of the Decedents
“[T]o obtain a recovery for fraud, a claimant must prove, inter alia, that damages
were sustained as a proximate cause of the fraudulent conduct. [Citation.]” (Kruse v.
Bank of America (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 38, 60.) “Ordinarily, proximate cause is
a question of fact . . . [however,] where the facts are such that the only reasonable
conclusion is an absence of causation, the question is one of law, not of fact.
[Citations.]” (Weissich v. County of Marin (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1069, 1084.)
“[R]eliance is the causal mechanism of fraud. [Citation.] . . . [¶] ‘[R]eliance is
proved by showing that the defendant’s misrepresentation or nondisclosure was “an
immediate cause” of the plaintiff’s injury-producing conduct. [Citation.] A plaintiff
1 Plaintiffs’ brief does not address the other two alleged misrepresentations.
11
may establish that the defendant’s misrepresentation is an “immediate cause” of the
plaintiff’s conduct by showing that in its absence the plaintiff “in all reasonable
probability” would not have engaged in the injury-producing conduct.’ [Citation.]”
(In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 326.)
Here, Plaintiffs contend that the decedents would not have attended USC and
would not have been killed if not for the alleged misrepresentations by USC. That
decedents relied on the representations is not shown by the second amended complaint,
which did not allege that the decedents ever read the representations but only that they
“accessed” the website where the statements were posted. Furthermore, the alleged
reliance is too remote and vague: plaintiffs do not allege that the decedents would not
have ventured into the neighborhoods surrounding USC but for the representations, or
that the decedents failed to take safety precautions in reliance on the representations.
On these grounds, the trial court did not err in concluding that the complaint did not
adequately allege a causal connection between the misrepresentations and the death of
the decedents.
4. Amendment to the Complaint
Although the trial court must grant leave to amend if there is “a reasonable
probability that the complaint could have been amended to cure the defect,” here,
plaintiffs did not argue in the trial court, and do not argue now, that they could amend
the complaint to cure its defects. (Sprinkles v. Associated Indemnity Corp. (2010)
188 Cal.App.4th 69, 75-76.)
12
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Defendant shall recover its costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
CROSKEY, J.
WE CONCUR:
KLEIN, P. J.
ALDRICH, J.
13
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the university owed no duty to protect adult students from third-party criminal acts in off-campus neighborhoods and that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead causation or the falsity of the university's safety representations.
Issues
Did the university owe a legal duty to protect students from third-party criminal activity in off-campus neighborhoods?
Did the plaintiffs sufficiently allege that the university's failure to provide security was the legal cause of the decedents' deaths?
Were the allegations of fraud and negligent misrepresentation pled with sufficient specificity regarding falsity and causation?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Ordinarily, there is no duty to protect others from third party criminal activity.”
“plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that USC undertook to provide security services in the area where the decedents were killed, or, as a result, that they had a duty to do so.”
“the trial court properly sustained the demurrer to the negligence causes of action on the grounds that plaintiffs’ allegations did not afford the inference that USC’s failure to provide security services was the legal cause of the decedents’ deaths.”