Alleged Discrimination Case
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
[attorney info redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] Attorneys for Defendants PQRS Corporation, Tom Adams and Kenny Adams, and for self, in pro per The FAC contained 11 causes of action against which I wrote 23 demurrers, which are stated below, with the judge’s rulings inserted in red. 19 demurrers were sustained (one of these was sustained with NO leave to amend, thereby eliminating the seventh cause of action for BPC § 17200). Four demurrers were overruled, but two of these were as to causes of action against which other demurrers were sustained. Only two causes of action survived intact (the tenth and eleventh), and I had advised the attorney …show more content…
Plaintiff’s Reliance on the Alleged Misrepresentation Was Not Justifiable Because the Alleged Contract Induced Thereby Would Have Been Void for Lack of Consideration from Plaintiff. ........................................................18 3.6. The Third Cause of Action for Fraud and Deceit (Fraudulent Concealment) Is Uncertain, Ambiguous and Unintelligible because FAC ¶ 46 Is Rambling and Incomprehensible. ...........................................................................................18 3.7. The Third Cause of Action Fails to State a Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment Against the ADAMS DEFENDANTS ............................................19 3.7.1. The Allegation of Damages Is Conclusory, Is Wholly Unsupported by Any Factual Allegations of Damages, and Contradicts Other Allegations in the FAC............................................................................................................19 3.7.2. Justifiable Reliance Is Not Alleged........................................................................19 3.8. The Fourth Cause of Action Fails to State a Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against the ADAMS DEFENDANTS. ........................................19 3.8.1. The Allegation of Damages Is Conclusory, Is Wholly Unsupported by Any Factual Allegations of Damages, and Contradicts Other Allegations in the FAC............................................................................................................19 3.8.2. …show more content…
They agreed to the shareholder percentages and investment amounts stated in FAC ¶¶ 16-17, which gave Plaintiff a 35% shareholder interest and required him to invest $245,000 (hereinafter the “STOCK AGREEMENT”). However, Plaintiff only invested $100,000 of that into PQRS CORP, and, pursuant to a loan to Plaintiff from TOM, TOM paid the remaining $145,000 into PQRS CORP (FAC ¶ 16(2)(C)). TOM and KENNY each invested the full amounts required into PQRS CORP: $385,000 and $70,000, respectively. The total capital investment was $700,000. There was talk about substantial additional investment by TOM, but such additional investment would be contingent upon a showing of progress and also upon the issuance of additional stock to TOM (which would dilute the stock held by the others). TOM and KENNY entrusted Plaintiff with the day-to-day management of PQRS CORP. Their trust was misplaced. After a period of time, it became clear that Plaintiff did
[attorney info redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] Attorneys for Defendants PQRS Corporation, Tom Adams and Kenny Adams, and for self, in pro per The FAC contained 11 causes of action against which I wrote 23 demurrers, which are stated below, with the judge’s rulings inserted in red. 19 demurrers were sustained (one of these was sustained with NO leave to amend, thereby eliminating the seventh cause of action for BPC § 17200). Four demurrers were overruled, but two of these were as to causes of action against which other demurrers were sustained. Only two causes of action survived intact (the tenth and eleventh), and I had advised the attorney …show more content…
Plaintiff’s Reliance on the Alleged Misrepresentation Was Not Justifiable Because the Alleged Contract Induced Thereby Would Have Been Void for Lack of Consideration from Plaintiff. ........................................................18 3.6. The Third Cause of Action for Fraud and Deceit (Fraudulent Concealment) Is Uncertain, Ambiguous and Unintelligible because FAC ¶ 46 Is Rambling and Incomprehensible. ...........................................................................................18 3.7. The Third Cause of Action Fails to State a Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment Against the ADAMS DEFENDANTS ............................................19 3.7.1. The Allegation of Damages Is Conclusory, Is Wholly Unsupported by Any Factual Allegations of Damages, and Contradicts Other Allegations in the FAC............................................................................................................19 3.7.2. Justifiable Reliance Is Not Alleged........................................................................19 3.8. The Fourth Cause of Action Fails to State a Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against the ADAMS DEFENDANTS. ........................................19 3.8.1. The Allegation of Damages Is Conclusory, Is Wholly Unsupported by Any Factual Allegations of Damages, and Contradicts Other Allegations in the FAC............................................................................................................19 3.8.2. …show more content…
They agreed to the shareholder percentages and investment amounts stated in FAC ¶¶ 16-17, which gave Plaintiff a 35% shareholder interest and required him to invest $245,000 (hereinafter the “STOCK AGREEMENT”). However, Plaintiff only invested $100,000 of that into PQRS CORP, and, pursuant to a loan to Plaintiff from TOM, TOM paid the remaining $145,000 into PQRS CORP (FAC ¶ 16(2)(C)). TOM and KENNY each invested the full amounts required into PQRS CORP: $385,000 and $70,000, respectively. The total capital investment was $700,000. There was talk about substantial additional investment by TOM, but such additional investment would be contingent upon a showing of progress and also upon the issuance of additional stock to TOM (which would dilute the stock held by the others). TOM and KENNY entrusted Plaintiff with the day-to-day management of PQRS CORP. Their trust was misplaced. After a period of time, it became clear that Plaintiff did