Fung v. City of Los Angeles
Thomas Fung (Fung) appeals from the trial courts dismissal of his second amended complaint for promissory estoppel, intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation after sustaining the demurrer filed by respondents the City of Los Angeles (City), Robert M. Sainz (Sainz) and Ann Giagni (Giagni). On appeal, Fung contends that the trial court erred. This contention is not born out by Fungs scant and deficient arguments, nor by the record. Among other things, the facts alleged fail to show that it would comport with public policy for promissory estoppel to be applied against the City, that Fung reasonably relied on any promises made by Sainz or Giagni, or that the immunity for public employees set forth in Government Code section 822.2 does not absolve Sainz and Giagni of liability.
IF Court are not inclined to reverse, which Court are not, Fung alternatively requests an opportunity to amend his pleading. But he failed to demonstrate that a successful amendment is possible and, in any event, he waived his request by not making it to the trial court and preserving the issue.
Court affirm.
Comments on Fung v. City of Los Angeles