Wicked Deals, Inc. v. Purtle CA4/1
Plaintiff and appellant Wicked Deals, Inc. appeals from a judgment of dismissal in favor of defendants and respondents Grady Purtle and his company Ark Mobility, Inc. (Ark Mobility) after the trial court sustained without leave to amend defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's first amended complaint that sought to allege, among other causes of action, intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation against defendants. In part, defendants argued under Lovejoy v. AT&T Corp. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 85 (Lovejoy), plaintiff could not rely on the doctrine of indirect fraud: the rule that a plaintiff may assert a claim for misrepresentation a defendant makes to third parties if the defendant intends or has reason to expect the plaintiff would repeat and act on the representations. The trial court ruled the doctrine did not apply to plaintiff's claims.
Comments on Wicked Deals, Inc. v. Purtle CA4/1