The People of The State of California v. National CPR Foundation, LLC, et al.

Case Number

24CV05905

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 10/08/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

1. Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint; 2. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff The People of The State of California: Christopher B. Dalbey, Santa Barbara County District Attorney, Lauren Dossey, Riverside County District Attorney

For Defendants National CPR Foundation, LLC and Michael A. Paladino: Sean Ponist, Cary D. McReynolds, Natalie E. Ortiz, Ponist Law Group P.C.

                       

RULING

For the reasons set forth below:

1. Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is overruled.
2. Defendants’ motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint is denied.
3. Defendants shall file and serve their answers to Plaintiff’s complaint no later than October 15, 2025.

Background

This action commenced on October 22, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by The People of the State of California (The People) against Defendants National CPR Foundation LLC (NCPRF) and Michael Angelo Paladino, an individual and Managing Member of NCPRF (Paladino) (Collectively, Defendants), for injunction, civil penalties, and other relief. The complaint contains causes of action for: (1) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17500 – False or Misleading Advertising re Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Guidelines; (2) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17500 – False or Misleading Advertising re American Heart Association (AHA) Standards; (3) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17500 – False or Misleading Advertising re AHA Benefits to Trainees; (4) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17500 – False or Misleading Advertising re Accreditation; (5) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17500 – False or Misleading Advertising re Certificate Acceptance; (6) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – Unfair Competition, False Advertising Law (FAL) Violations re OSHA Guidelines; (7) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – Unfair Competition, FAL Violations re AHA Standards; (8) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – Unfair Competition, FAL Violations re AHA Benefits to Trainees; (9) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – Unfair Competition, FAL Violations re Accreditation; (10) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – Unfair Competition, FAL Violations re Certificate Acceptance; (11) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – Unfair Competition, Advertising re OSHA Guidelines; (12) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – Unfair Competition, Advertising re AHA Standards; (13) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – Unfair Competition, Advertising re AHA Benefits to Trainees; (14) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – Unfair Competition, Advertising re Accreditation; (15) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – Unfair Competition, Advertising re Certificate Acceptance; (16) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17500 – False or Misleading Advertising re Comparison Pricing; and  (17) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – Unfair Competition, FAL Violations re Comparison Pricing.

The People essentially allege, by way of the complaint, that since at least June 27, 2019, NCPRF operated an online, computer-based certification program for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), that is entirely online and provides no in-person or hands-on training. (Compl., ¶¶ 33, 35.) Paladino has been the sole managing member of NCPRF since its inception. (Id. at ¶ 34.) The People allege numerous false and misleading representations to California consumers, such as untruthfully advertising that NCPRF adheres to or meets guidelines or standards of OSHA and AHA, is accredited, and is accepted by all employers who require employees to be CPR certified.

On November 21, 2024, Defendants filed a notice of removal of the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, based on federal question jurisdiction. On February 6, 2025, the District Court issued an order of remand, finding that there is no federal question jurisdiction. In doing so, the District Court noted: “Though Defendants are correct that Plaintiff, by breaking out its claims by misrepresentation rather than law, technically asserts claims based solely on misrepresentations about federal OSHA regulations, it is clear from the face of the Complaint that these misrepresentations are simply competing theories that were separated for clarity. Whether Defendants are liable for false advertising or unfair competition does not necessarily turn on the construction of federal OSHA regulations. These regulations relate to only one theory out of six.” (Feb. 6, 2025, Civil Minutes, p. 3.)

On March 17, 2025, Defendants answered the complaint, admitting some allegations and denying others.

On April 18, 2025, Defendants filed an amended answer to the complaint, admitting some allegations and denying others. Defendants also filed a request for judicial notice in support of its amended answer. On April 21, 2025, Defendants filed numerous exhibits pertaining to the request for judicial notice. Importantly, these documents were personally filed by Paladino, on behalf of himself as well as NCPRF, while he was still represented by counsel.

On April 30, 2025, Plaintiff moved to strike the original answer filed on March 17, 2025, the amended answer filed on April 18, 2025, and the request for judicial notice, as to NCPRF.

On June 11, 2025, the answer, amended answer, and request for judicial notice were stricken and Defendants were granted leave to file a further amended pleading no later than July 2, 2025.

On July 11, 2025, Defendants filed the present demurrer to complaint. Defendants demur to the entire complaint on the grounds that: (1) each cause of action fails to identify which Defendants it is directed, and (2) each cause of action has not been pled with sufficient particularity. Defendants further demur to: (1) the first cause of action pursuant to the “sham pleading” rule, (2) the sixth cause of action pursuant to the sham pleading rule, (3) the eleventh cause of action, arguing that it fails to allege a “likelihood of deception” and likelihood of “substantial injury,” and pursuant to the sham pleading rule, (4) the twelfth cause of action, arguing that it fails to allege a “likelihood of deception” and likelihood of “substantial injury,” (5) the thirteenth cause of action, arguing that it fails to allege a “likelihood of deception” and likelihood of “substantial injury,” (6) the fourteenth cause of action, arguing that it fails to allege a “likelihood of deception” and likelihood of “substantial injury,” and (7) the fifteenth cause of action, arguing that it fails to allege a “likelihood of deception” and likelihood of “substantial injury.”

On July 11, 2025, Defendants also filed the present motion to strike. Defendants seek to have 10 portions of the complaint stricken.

Plaintiff opposes the demurrer and motion to strike.

Analysis

            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).)

“[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.)

“If the complaint states a cause of action under any theory, regardless of the title under which the factual basis for relief is stated, that aspect of the complaint is good against a demurrer. “ ‘[W]e are not limited to Plaintiffs’ theory of recovery in testing the sufficiency of their complaint against a demurrer, but instead must determine if the factual allegations of the complaint are adequate to state a cause of action under any legal theory. The Courts of this state have . . . long since departed from holding a Plaintiff strictly to the ‘form of action’ he has pleaded and instead have adopted the more flexible approach of examining the facts alleged to determine if a demurrer should be sustained.’ ” [Citations.]” (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39.)

“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.)

A demurrer searches for defects in the allegations of the pleading. “A demurrer is simply not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts.” (Ramsden v. Western Union (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 873, 879.)

            Unfair Competition and False or Misleading Statements

As noted above, The People’s causes of action are based on Business & Professions Code, sections 17200 and 17500.

“As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.)

“[S]ection 17200 is not confined to anticompetitive business practice but is equally directed toward ” ’ “the right of the public to protection from fraud and deceit.“ ’ ”  [Citation.] Furthermore, the section 17200 proscription of ‘ “unfair competition” ’ is not restricted to deceptive or fraudulent conduct but extends to any unlawful business practice [citation]. The Legislature apparently intended to permit Courts to enjoin ongoing wrongful business conduct in whatever context such activity might occur [citations].” (Committee On Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 209–210.)

“It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform services, professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature whatsoever or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the public in this state, or to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement, concerning that real or personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, or concerning any circumstance or matter of fact connected with the proposed performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading, or for any person, firm, or corporation to so make or disseminate or cause to be so made or disseminated any such statement as part of a plan or scheme with the intent not to sell that personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, so advertised at the price stated therein, or as so advertised.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500.)

Identification of Defendants for Each Cause of Action

Defendants’ first argument is that Plaintiffs impermissibly fail to identify which causes of action apply to which Defendant.

“Each separately stated cause of action, count, or defense must specifically state:

“(1) Its number (e.g., “ ‘first cause of action’ ”);

“(2) Its nature (e.g., “ ‘for fraud’ ”);

“(3) The party asserting it if more than one party is represented on the pleading (e.g., “ ‘by Plaintiff Jones’ ”); and

“(4) The party or parties to whom it is directed (e.g., “ ‘against Defendant Smith’ ”).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.112.)

“[A] complaint must specify against which Defendant or Defendants each claim is directed. [Citations.]” (Sass v. Cohen (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1044, italics added.)

Here, Defendants seem to argue that The People are required to include the names of each Defendant in the heading of each cause of action. While it is arguably better practice to do so, there is no requirement that the party, or parties, against whom the cause of action is alleged be named in the heading of each cause of action.

NCPRF and Paladino are the only two named Defendants in this action. The complaint alleges: “Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of Defendants, such allegations shall be deemed to mean the act of each Defendant acting individually, jointly, and severally.” (Compl., ¶ 15.)

Each cause of action specifically identifies both Defendants as being sued under that cause of action. (Compl., ¶¶ 50, 55, 58, 64, 69, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, 92, 94, 97, 99, 102, 104, 107, 109, 112, 114, 117, 119, 127, 129.)

Defendants’ first argument is without merit.

            Pleading with Sufficient Particularity

Defendants’ second argument is that the allegations of all causes of action lack the required particularity for pleading violation of Business & Professions Code, sections 17200 and 17500.

Defendants rely on a single case in support of their argument, citing: “ ‘A Plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes [i.e., Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17500] must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.’ ” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.)” (Demurrer, p. 2, l. 28 – p. 3, l. 2.)

The specific portion of the holding in Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc., that is relied on by Defendants, has been implicitly disapproved by the California Supreme Court. Unfair competition claims need not be pled specifically. (See Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., supra, 19 Cal.4th at 46-47.)

Defendants argue that The People must set forth why the statements made by Defendants were “purportedly false.” (Demurrer, p. 3, ll. 16-22.) In short, Defendants’ argument appears to be based on the false assumption that The People are required to include every detail that comprises their case against Defendants.

The allegations of the 24-page complaint methodically describe Defendants’ certification program, the applicable OSHA guidelines, how Defendants have violated the OSHA guidelines, how Defendants have made false representations to consumers, that Defendants knew their representations to the public were untrue or misleading, the lack of Defendants’ accreditation, and Defendants’ knowledge of their violations and unlawful conduct. The allegations and causes of action contain specific information, direct quotations, and even screenshots of Defendants’ website.

The demurrer based on lack of particularity is overruled. The Court finds that The People provided a great deal more specificity that is required to overcome a challenge by way demurrer.

            Likelihood of Deception and Likelihood of Substantial Injury

Defendants next arguments are that causes of action 11 through 15 fail to allege a likelihood of deception or a likelihood of substantial injury.

“To state a cause of action under these statutes for injunctive relief, it is necessary only to show that “ ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’ ” [Citations.] Allegations of actual deception, reasonable reliance, and damage are unnecessary.” (Committee On Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 211.) Clearly, Defendants’ argument regarding pleading of “substantial injury” fails. There is no requirement that The People allege a likelihood of substantial injury, and Defendants have provided no authority that The People are required to make such an allegation at the pleading stage.

Defendants’ argument regarding the likelihood of deception conflates the requirement that the allegations show that the members of the public are likely to be deceived, with a requirement that The People need to directly allege that the public is likely to be deceived. There is no requirement that The People are required to include a sentence in the complaint that states: “Members of the public are likely to be deceived” by Defendants’ false statements and misrepresentations.

The only reasonable implication that can be drawn from the allegations contained in the complaint is that members of the public were likely to be deceived by Defendants’ alleged violations and representations. These allegations include, but are not limited to, claims by Defendants that the CPR program strictly adheres to OSHA guidelines when it does not, that the CPR program was accredited when it was not, that the CPR certifications are accepted by all employers when they were not, and that Defendants publish deceptive pricing information on their website.

The demurrer based on Defendants’ argument that causes of action 11 through 15 fail to allege a likelihood of deception, and a likelihood of substantial injury, will be overruled.

            Sham Pleading

Defendants’ final argument is that causes of action 1, 6, and 11 are barred by the sham pleading doctrine. Defendants’ argument, in this regard, appears to be that The People predicate the first, sixth, and eleventh causes of action on the claim that Defendants falsely represented that Defendants’ online CPR courses comply with OSHA guidelines, but that the allegation is contradicted by an earlier statement made in a motion when this case was removed to federal Court. In that representation, The People argued that only California Law, as opposed to Federal Law, was alleged to have been violated.

Defendants’ argument ignores the fact that the first, sixth, and eleventh causes of action are all based on violations of state law and seek remedies based on state law. Specifically, the first cause of action is based on Business & Professions code, section 17500, and the sixth and eleventh causes of action are based on section 17200. There is no recovery requested for violation of OSHA guidelines. The allegations that Defendants falsely represented compliance with OSHA guidelines is merely one of several allegations pertaining to false representations in violation of state law. There is no contradiction between what was represented in federal Court and what is alleged in the complaint.

The demurrer based on the sham pleading doctrine will be overruled.

            Motion to Strike

Defendants seek to strike 10 portions of the complaint as follows:

1. Page 7, Lines 7-12 (General Allegations – Paragraph 40): “Defendants have [made] the following false and misleading statements: a. “Online Certification Courses Strictly Adhere to O[SH]A!” b. “National CPR Foundation (NCPRF) strictly adheres to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) guidelines . . .”
2. Page 8, Lines 10-20 (General Allegations – Paragraph 41): “NCPRF’s CPR certification program does not “strictly adhere[] to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) guidelines . . .”
3. Page 11, Lines 10-17 (Cause of Action 1 – Paragraph 51): “These statements falsely represent that NCPRF’s online CPR courses comply with OSHA guidelines . . .”
4. Page 14, Lines 26-77 (Cause of Action 6 – Paragraph 74): ““including but not limited to one or more unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices . . .”
5. Page 15, Lines 16-17 (Cause of Action 7 – Paragraph 78): “including but not limited to one or more unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices . . .”
6. Page 16, Lines 7-8 (Cause of Action 8 – Paragraph 82): “including but not limited to one or more unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices . . .”
7. Page 16, Lines 25-26 (Cause of Action 9 – Paragraph 86): “including but not limited to one or more unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices . . .”
8. Page 18, Lines 16-17 (Cause of Action 10 – Paragraph 90): “including but not limited to one or more unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices . . .” (Note: This is a typographical error by Defendants as the tenth cause of action, and paragraph 90, is on page 17.)
9. Page 17, Lines 9-16 (Cause of Action 11 – Paragraph 95): “Such advertising by Defendants includes statements falsely representing that NCPRF’s online CPR courses comply with OSHA guidelines …” (Note: This is a typographical error by Defendants as the eleventh cause of action, and paragraph 95, is on page 18.)
10. Page 23, Lines 3-4 (Cause of Action 17 – Paragraph 127): “including but not limited to one or more unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices . . .”

“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).)

“In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)

“[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.)

All of Defendants’ arguments for the motion to strike are repetitions of arguments made, and rejected, in conjunction with the demurrer. To repeat: The sham pleading doctrine does not apply. The causes of action are all pled with the requisite particularity. The allegations clearly infer that consumers are likely to be deceived by Defendants’ representations. Plaintiff is not required to plead that consumers are likely to suffer significant harm.

The motion to strike lacks merit and will be denied in its entirety.