Pablo Banuelos v. The Hollister Ranch Cooperative, et al.

Case Number

24CV00224

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 11/06/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

1. Demurrer of Hollister Ranch Owners’ Association and Juan Romero to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint; and, 2. Hollister Ranch Owners’ Association and Juan Romero’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Pablo Banuelos: Julie Farrugia, Zachary W. Okun

                                   

For Defendant Hollister Ranch Owners’ Association and Juan Romero: Ted M. Lee, Charles F. Nikolenko

                                   

For Defendant Hollister Ranch Corporation: No Appearance

                                   

For Defendant The Hollister Ranch Cooperative: No Appearance

                                   

                                   

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein:

1. The demurrer of Hollister Ranch Owners’ Association and Juan Romero to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is sustained in part and overruled in part as follows:
   1. The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the second cause of action for negligent misrepresentation.
   2. The demurrer is overruled as to the third cause of action for intentional misrepresentation.
2. The Motion to strike of Hollister Ranch Owners’ Association and Juan Romero is granted in part and denied in part as follows:
   1. The motion to strike Page 9, lines 16-18; Page 9, line 25; Page 10, line 2; Page 10, lines 8-9; Page 10, lines 51-52; Page 10, line 20; and Page 10, lines 18-27 is taken of calendar as moot.
   2. The motion to strike Page 13, lines 15-24 (Paragraph 66), and the prayer for exemplary damages, is denied.
3. Plaintiff shall file and serve his third amended complaint no later than November 27, 2024.
   1. Plaintiff shall not add any new causes of action without first obtaining permission of the Court to do so. He may remove causes of action should he choose to do so.

The trial date of 6/25/25 is confirmed.

Background

This action commenced on January 17, 2024, by the filing of the original complaint by Plaintiff Pablo Banuelos (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants Hollister Ranch Owners’ Association (“HROA”) and The Hollister Ranch Cooperative. On May 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) against HROA, The Hollister Ranch Cooperative, and Hollister Ranch Corporation (collectively “The Hollister Ranch Defendants”), setting forth causes of action for negligence and intentional misrepresentation.

Following the sustaining of the demurrer of Hollister Ranch Owners’ Association to the FAC, with leave to amend, on August 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) setting forth causes of action for: (1) Gross Negligence; (2) Negligent Misrepresentation; and (3) Intentional Misrepresentation. The SAC adds Juan Romero (“Romero”) as a Defendant and adds additional allegations.

To summarize the alleged facts of the SAC:

The Hollister Defendants owned, operated, managed, controlled, repaired, and had full control of the persons, property, electrical lines, utilities, and other fixtures on the property where the incident that is the subject of the complaint took place, and on the date that it took place, September 6, 2023. (SAC, ¶¶ 5, 6.)

On September 6, 2023, Plaintiff was employed by Granite Construction Company (“Granite”) (SAC, ¶ 11.) At that time, Plaintiff was doing work at the Hollister Ranch working on, among other things, a bridge and a road. (SAC, ¶ 12.) While working, Plaintiff became aware of what appeared to be some cable in the earth. (SAC, ¶ 13.)

Plaintiff did not know what the cable was, so he asked Juan Romero, and Does 1 -5, the nature of the cable. (SAC, ¶ 14.) Romero, and Does 1 - 5, told Plaintiff that the cable was an electrical line and that all the electrical power was off. (Ibid.) Plaintiff asked again and was assured that there was no electrical power to the line and there was no danger. (Ibid.) Plaintiff believed the Defendants. (SAC, ¶ 15.)

While Plaintiff was digging in the area of the cable, Romero and Does 1 - 5 instructed Plaintiff to move the electrical cable. (SAC, ¶ 16.) After being told “repeatedly” that the cable had no power and was not a danger, Plaintiff followed the orders and was electrocuted. (Ibid.) For a period, Plaintiff was dead. (Ibid.)

The Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known that the cable was live and dangerous. (SAC, ¶ 20.)

Additional allegations will be discussed below where appropriate.

HROA demurs to the second cause of action in the SAC, which is titled “Gross Negligent and Reckless Misrepresentation Against All Defendants” [Negligent Misrepresentation] on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to plead the elements of the cause of action with particularity and, in the alternative, the cause of action is uncertain for want of facts.

HROA demurs to the third cause of action for intentional misrepresentation on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to plead the elements of the cause of action with particularity and, in the alternative, the cause of action is uncertain.

Additionally, HROA moves to strike 10 portions of the SAC as improper, irrelevant matter, which does not conform to California law.

Plaintiff, in a single opposition, opposes the demurrer and motion to strike.

Analysis

                                                The Demurrer

“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:

“(a) The Court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.

“(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue.

“(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.

“(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.

“(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

“(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.

“(g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.

“(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)

“When any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the Court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) “Our consideration of the facts alleged includes ‘those evidentiary facts found in recitals of exhibits attached to [the] complaint.’ [Citation.]” (Alexander v. Exxon Mobil (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1250.)

“[A] Court must treat a demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, it does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 341, 358, citing Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

“To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the Plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)

Second Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation

and Third Cause of Action for Intentional Misrepresentation

The elements of negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation are substantially similar, with the only substantive difference is that negligent misrepresentation requires that a Defendant lack reasonable grounds for believing the misrepresentation to be true, and intentional misrepresentation requires that a Defendant know the falsity of the representation. “  A Plaintiff is permitted to plead alternative inconsistent theories.” (Dubin v. Robert Newhall Chesebrough Trust (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 465, 477.)

“The elements of negligent misrepresentation are “ ‘(1) the misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact, (2) without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, (3) with intent to induce another’s reliance on the fact misrepresented, (4) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation, and (5) resulting damage.’ ” [Citation.] While there is some conflict in the case law discussing the precise degree of particularity required in the pleading of a claim for negligent misrepresentation, there is a consensus that the causal elements, particularly the allegations of reliance, must be specifically pleaded. [Citations.]” (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 35, 50.)

“The elements of intentional misrepresentation “ ‘are (1) a misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance, (4) actual and justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage.’ ” [Citation.]” (Aton Center, Inc. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1245.)

Intentional misrepresentation is a type of fraud.  (See, Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.)

“[F]raud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice. . . . This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.’ [Citation.]” (Lazar v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 645.)

“Less specificity should be required of fraud claims “ ‘when ‘it appears from the nature of the allegations that the Defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy,’ ” [citation]; “ ‘[e]ven under the strict rules of common law pleading, one of the canons was that less particularity is required when the facts lie more in the knowledge of the opposite party. . . .’ ” [Citation.] (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.)

           

HROA and Romero argue that Plaintiff’s allegations are too general and not pled with the required specificity.

As to element one, applicable to both causes of action, Plaintiff pleads that Romero and Does 1 - 5 misrepresented that the cable was safe and did not have electricity going to it. (SAC, ¶¶ 14, 44, 55.)

As to element two, pertaining to the second cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, Plaintiff fails to plead that any of the Defendants made the misrepresentation without reasonable ground for believing it to be true. In fact, Plaintiff specifically states in the section pertaining to negligent misrepresentation that the misrepresentation was intentional. (SAC, ¶ 44.)

As to element two, pertaining to the third cause of action for intentional misrepresentation, Plaintiff does, as noted above and in several other places, plead that Romero and Does 1 - 5 knew their representations regarding the power line were false.

As to element three, pertaining to the third cause of action for intentional misrepresentation, Plaintiff pleads that Romero and Does 1 - 5 intended to induce Plaintiff’s reliance on their misrepresentations. (SAC, ¶ 62.)

As to element four, pertaining to the third cause of action for intentional misrepresentation, Plaintiff pleads that he reasonably and justifiably relied on Romero’s and Does 1 - 5’s misrepresentations. (SAC, ¶¶ 36, 44, 55.)

As to the fifth and final element, Plaintiff pleads damages as a result of the misrepresentations.

HROA also argues that the cause of action is uncertain.

“ ‘[U]ncertain’ ” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)

“Demurrers for uncertainty . . . are disfavored. . . . A demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled when the facts as to which the complaint is uncertain are presumptively within the Defendant’s knowledge.” (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.)

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

The Court does not find any of the causes of action to be uncertain. The Defendants would almost certainly be the ones in possession of knowledge regarding details that they are arguing is absent from the SAC.

However, as Plaintiff has not pled the necessary elements of negligent misrepresentation, specifically that any of the Defendants made the representation without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, the demurrer to the second cause of action will be sustained, with leave to amend. When amending, should Plaintiff again include an action for negligent misrepresentation, he should make sure that the heading of the cause of action matches the caption.

“The Plaintiff may not amend the complaint to add a new cause of action without having obtained permission to do so . . .” (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.) Plaintiff will be ordered to not add any new causes of action to the third amended complaint without following the proper legal procedure.

                                                           Motion to Strike

“The Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) “Irrelevant matter” includes a “demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b)(3), (c).) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the Court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)

“[J]udges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

HROA and Romero move to strike several portions of the SAC.

As to the second cause of action for negligent misrepresentation: Because the demurrer to that cause of action is being sustained, with leave to amend, the motion to strike the allegations of that cause of action is moot, and the Court will not rule on the motion to strike as to that cause of action. However, when drafting his third amended complaint, should he choose to include a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, Plaintiff should bear in mind that punitive damages are not available under that cause of action. The specific pages and lines that are included in the second cause of action, which HROA and Romero seek to have stricken, are: Page 9, lines 16-18; Page 9, line 25; Page 10, line 2; Page 10, lines 8-9; Page 10, lines 51-52; Page 10, line 20; and Page 10, lines 18-27. The Court notes that not all the language objected to pertains directly and solely to punitive damages and, had the demurrer not been sustained as to the second cause of action, some of the language would have not been stricken.

As to the third cause of action for intentional misrepresentation, and the prayer for damages: “If the deception was intentional, punitive damages are available.” As Plaintiff has adequately pled intentional misrepresentation, the motion to strike, as it pertains to the third cause of action and the prayer for relief will be denied.