Under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (p)(2), Defendant has the initial burden of showing there is no merit to one or more elements of negligence. Defendant did not conclusively negate the elements of duty and breach, however Defendant met its initial burden as to causation.

As to causation, Defendant met its initial burden by producing the expert declaration of orthopedic surgeon Jeffrey E. Deckey, M.D. (Deckey), who opined that to a reasonable degree of medical probability that nothing Defendant or the massage therapist did or did not do caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. (Deckey Decl. ¶ 9.) Because medical causation in this matter is beyond common experience, expert testimony was required to create a triable issue of fact. (Webster v. Claremont Yoga (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 284, 290.) Plaintiff failed to produce admissible expert evidence rebutting Deckey’s opinions. Defendant established Plaintiff cannot prove causation, an essential element of negligence.

Defendant shall give notice.

307 Passi vs. Zhou Before the Court at present are: (1) the Demurrer filed on 1/2/26 by Defendants Xiao Yang and Geng Guanjin (Yang/Guanjin); and (2) the Demurrer filed on 1/5/26 by Defendant Fengsuo Zhou (Zhou). Both Demurrers are directed to the Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action in the First Amended Complaint (FAC), as filed on 12/2/25 by Plaintiff Jouni Passi (Plaintiff). The Yang/Guanjin Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend. The Zhou Demurrer is MOOT.

All three of the causes of action at issue appear to be based on allegations of fraud, but Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to support a fraud claim.

The elements of a fraud claim are: (a) a misrepresentation (false representation, concealment or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity/scienter; (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage. (Philipson & Simon v. Gulsvig (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 347, 363.) Every element must be alleged in full, factually and specifically. (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Lindsey E. Martínez Judge Lindsey E. Martínez dossier Other Demurrer in ORANGE All ORANGE County rulings Other Fraud cases

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

.) The pleading must state facts that show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the misrepresentations were tendered. (Id.)

Here, the FAC refers vaguely to “Defendants and/or Defendants’ agents/representatives” along with their counsel and insurance carriers, accusing them collectively of hiding or “withholding” facts, “knowingly and intentionally” omitting facts, and having made a representation about applicable insurance coverage. (FAC, Attachment 3, at ¶¶ 2, 3; Attachment 4, at ¶¶ 1-4; Attachment 5, at ¶ 3.) But those allegations fail to specify who allegedly said or wrote what, to whom, when, and what was allegedly false or misleading. The FAC also does not articulate whether the fraud claim is based on an overt misrepresentation, or non-disclosure. Nor does it specify, if the claim is for nondisclosure, who had a duty to disclose the “concealed” fact, and what circumstances triggered that duty?

In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim for rescission based on unilateral mistake, as the Opposition suggests, the FAC also does not adequately assert the factual basis for that claim. (See Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261, 282.)

The Yang/Guanjin Demurrer is therefore SUSTAINED as to the Third, Fourth and Fifth

Causes of Action, with 15 days leave to amend. In light of that ruling, the Zhou Demurrer is MOOT.

Yang/Guanjin shall give notice.

308 Malchow vs. Plaintiff Stephanie Malchow’s motion to serve Secure One defendant Secure One Capital Corporation is Capital CONTINUED to 5/26/26 at 1:30pm in Department Corporation C24.

The notice of motion, memorandum of points and authorities and declaration are not properly signed. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 128.7, subd. (a), § 2015.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.257(b).) Counsel’s declaration also fails to state whether efforts were made to serve the corporation through its officers by mail and acknowledgment of receipt pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30, subdivision (a) (in addition to attempts at personal service and substitute service). (See Corp. Code § 1702, subd. (a); Code of Civ. Proc. § 416.10, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff shall file corrected and updated documents at least 10 days before the next hearing date.

The court continues the OSC to 5/26/26 at 1:30pm.

309 Norviel vs. FCA Defendant FCA US, LLC’s (Defendant) demurrer to US LLC the first amended complaint (FAC) of plaintiff John Norviel (Plaintiff) is OVERRULED. Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.

Defendant shall file an answer to the FAC by 5/21/26.

Motion No. 1: Demurrer

The court concludes the six-year statute of repose under Code of Civil Procedure section 871.21,