Dehbozorgi vs. AL E. CAT, Inc.

relationship.” (Rattagan, supra, 17 Cal.5th at 45.) As such, the economic loss rule would not bar Plaintiff’s claim for fraudulent inducement- concealment.

Motion No. 2: Motion to Strike

Because Plaintiff’s fraud cause of action remains viable, punitive damages may be recoverable pursuant to said claim. The FAC also sufficiently alleges authorization or ratification by an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendant. (FAC ¶ 7; see also, Civ Code, § 3294(a), (b).)

Court continues the CMC to 6/1/26 at 8:45am.

Defendant shall give notice.

311 Dehbozorgi vs. The Demurrer by cross-defendant Jeffrey Michael AL E. CAT, Inc. Payne fdba J Payne Construction Company (Payne) is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Cross-complainant Al E. Cat, Inc. has leave to file a first amended cross-complaint by 5/21/26.

3rd Cause of Action, Breach of Contract. The cross complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. (See Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186 [elements]; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 307 [“If the action is based on alleged breach of a written contract, the terms must be set out verbatim in the body of the complaint or a copy of the written agreement must be attached and incorporated by reference.”].)

The court continues the CMC to 8/17/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24. All unserved defendants/cross- defendants must be served by the next date.

Payne shall give notice.