Preview
‘
SUPERIOR C0_URT OF, CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO Entered by:
Civil Department -Non-Limited ,‘
TITLE 6F CASE:
_Virginia Sarabian vs. Syngenta Seeds, LLC
'
I
Case Number:
LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER ‘
a
186ECG02994
Hearing Date: April 24, 2019 From Chambers: DemurrerlMotion to Strike
Department: 403 Judge/Temp. Judge: McGuire, Rosemary
Court Clerk: Garcia, Sam Reporter/Tape: Not Reported
Appearing Parties: _
Plaintiff: ,
Defendant:
Counsel: No Appearances Counsel: No Appearances
[ ]
Off Calendar
[
]Continued to [ ]Setfor _ at _ Dept. __ for _
[ ]
Submitted on points and authorities wifh/without argument. [ ]
Matter isargued and submitted.
[ ]
Upon filing of points and authorities.
]Motién isgranted [ ]in part and denied in part. [
]Motion isdenied [
]with/withoutprejudice.
[
[x] Matter having been previously taken under advisement on 4-23-19, the court now rules.
[
]Demurrer [
]overruled [
]sustained. with _ daysto [
]answer [
]aménd
[x ]Tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. No further order is necessary.
[x Pursuant to CRC 3.1312(a) and CCP section 1019.5(a), no further order is necessary. The minute order
]> '
adopting the tentative ruling'serves as the order of the court.
[x] Service by the clerk will constitute notice ofrthe order.
[x] See attached ‘copy of theTentative Rulihg.
[ ]
Judgment debtor_ sworn and examined.
[ ]
Judgment debtor _ failed to appear.
Bench warrant issued in the amount of $ __
JUDGMENT:
[ >]
Money damages [
]Default [
]Other __ entered in the amountof:
Principal $_ |nterest$_ Costs $_ Attorney fees $_ Total $_
[ ]
Claim of'exemption [ ]
granted [ ]
denied. Court orders withholdings modified to $_‘_ per_
FURTHER, COURT ORDERS:
Monies held by levying officer to be [ ]
released tojudgment creditor. []
returned tojudgment debtor.
[ ]
[ ] $_ to be released to judgment creditor and balance returned to judgment debtor.
[ ] Levying Officer, County of _, notified. [
]Writ to issue
[ ]
Notice to be filed within 15 days. [ ]
Restitution of Premises
[ ]Other: _
cv—14b R0348
|.__.I_A__. r--—
LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER
(30)
Tentative Ruling
Re: Virginia Sarabian v. Syngenfa Seeds, LLC
Superior Court No. 18CECGO2994
Hearing Date: April 23, 2019 (Dept. 403)
Motions: Defendant Syngem‘o Seeds LLC‘s Demurrer To portions of The
_
Second Amended Complaint
Defendon’r Syngen’ro Seeds LLC' s Motion To S’rrikeThe Second
Amended Comploin’r
Tentative Ruling:
To sustain'defendon’r's demurrer in i’rs en’rire’ry f6 causes of action one, Two,
Three 0nd fourwi’rhin The second amended complaint.
-
Defendant‘s motion 1‘0 strike isoff calendar os no moving papers were filAed.
Plainfiff isgranted fen days leave fo amend. All changes musf be in bold. The
Time in which on amendment may be filed will run from Service by The Clerk of fhe
minufe order.
Explanation:
Defendon’r Syngenfc Seeds, LLC demurs To the following causes of oc’rion: (1)
negligence (production and delivery of defective seed); (2) negligence (sole of old
seed); (3) negligen’r misrepresentation; 0nd (4) intentional misrepresentation. Defendant
argues Thon‘ The damages which plaintiff seeks To recover based Upon ’rhese claims ore
purely economic Thus They ore barred by'
’rhe economic loss rule. This argument is
addressed below.
The Economic Loss Rule
The economic loss rule provides: where o purchaser's expectations in o sole ore
frustrated because The product he bought is noT working properly, his remedy issaid ’ro
be in contract alone, for he hos suffered only economic losses. (Robinson Helicopfer
C0,, Inc. v. Dana Corp. (Robinson Helicopfer) (2004) 34 Col.4’rh 979, 988.) Quite simply,
’rhe economic loss rule preven’r‘s ’rhe law of ‘con’rroc’r 0nd ’rhe low of tort from dissolving
one im‘o The other. (Food Sofefy Nef Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc. (201 2) 209
Cal.AppAfh H 18, 1130.) “[E]conomic loss consists of dqmoges-for inadequate value,
costs of repair 0nd replacement of The defective producf or consequent loss of
profi’rs—wifhou’r any claim of personal injury or damages ’ro other property." (Id. of p.
‘
1130, fn. 4.)
Causes of Acfion One & Two
“[T]he economic loss rule provides ThoT enfifies generally hove no duty To
prevem‘ purely economic loss ’roo po’rem‘iol plaintiff. Under ’rhe common low, i’r
isonly
where o ‘speciol relofionship' exis’rs,giving rise To such c1du’ry, That c1 plaintiff may
recover purely economic loss." (Greysfone Homes, Inc. v. Midfec, Inc. (2008) 168
Col.App.4’rh 1194, 1215, citing J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory (J’Aire) (1979) 24 Cal.3d 799, 804-
805 & OH v. AIfa—Lovol Agri, Inc. (Off) (1995) 31 Col.App.4’rh 1439, 1448.)
Deferminofion of whether o special relofionship exists is subject to o 6—por’r ’res’r:
”(1) the exfen’r ’ro which The fronsoc’rion was intended ’ro affect ’rhe plaintiff, (2) the
foreseeabilify of harm ’ro ’rhe plaintiff,
(3) ’rhe degree of certainty ’rhoT the plaintiff
suffered injury, (4) the closeness of Theconnecfion between ’rhe defendant's conduct
0nd The injury suffered, (5) The moral blame o’rfoched To ’rhe defendant‘s conduct 0nd
(6) ’rhe policy of preventing fu’rure harm.” (J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory, supra, 24 COLBd 0T p.
804.) In summary, recovery of purely economic damages will be limited To instances
“where The risk of harm is foreseeable 0nd is closely connected wi’rh The defendon’r's
conduct, where damages ore noT wholly speculative and ’rhe injury is n01 port of ’rhe
plaintiff‘s ordinary business risk." (Off v. Alfo—Lovol, supra, 31 Cal.AppATh of p. 1450.)
However, h‘
has repeatedly been held ’rho’r o “special relationship” cannot be
established, unless The transaction o’rissue wos characterized by o “close relationship"
befween The defendant 0nd The plaintiff. (See, e.g., Greysfone Homes v. Midfec, supra,
168 Cal.AppAfh OT pp. 1229-1 231 [discussing Fieldsfone Co. v. Briggs Plumbing ProducTs,
Inc. (1997) 54 Col.App.4Th 357, 368—369, Zamora v. Shell Oil Co. (1997) 55 Cal.AppA’rh
204, 0nd Oh‘ v. AlfoaLoval, supra. 31 Col.App.4Th OT p. 1439].) ln Greysfone Homes, The
cour’r had ’ro determine whether the special relationship exception applied ’ro The sole
of o manufacturer's plumbing fifiings to o builder. The’ cour’r reviewed cases in which
courts hod applied J’Aire, 0nd determined Thof in each case, ’rhe absence of a close
relationship was disposi’riVe of The J’Aire fes’r,0nd precluded c1finding of a “special
relo’rionship.” (Id. of pp. 1229-1231 .) The court also distinguished The relo’rionship
between o manufacturer 0nd the “re’roilbuyer 0T large," from ’rhe sifuq’rion in which The
product manufacturer “specially mode The [product] for ’rhe benefi’r of ’rhe
[consumer].” (Id.o’r pp. 1230-1231 .)“[O]rdinory product manufacturers having no
special knowledge of The manner in which their products will be used by o particular
builder do no’r hove o ‘speci'ol relationship‘ wi’rh ’rhe builder That would support a
negligence cause of action for economic losses pursuom‘ ’ro J’Aire." (Id.of p. 1231 .)
Noting fhc’r ’rhe manufacturer had mode The plumbing fifiings for onofher em‘i’ry which;
in Turn, incorporated ’rhem im‘o o plumbing sys’rem eventually sold ’ro the builder, ’rhe
Greysfone Homes court concluded The transaction was no’r characterized by o “special
relationship" between ’rhe monufccfurer'dnd builder. (Ibid.)
Similarly, in Off, the court applied J’Aire ’rodetermine whether o manufacturer of
milking machines had o “special relo’rionship" wi’rh ploinfiff dairy owners. (OH v. Alfa-
Loval, supra, 31 Cal.App'ATh of pp. 1455-1456.) ITnoted fho’r ”neither ’rhe pleadings nor
The evidence suggests the 1970 milking system was ‘inTended To offec’r' the plaintiffs in
cmy way particular To The plaintiffs, cs opposed To oll potential purchasers of The
equipment." (Id. 0T p. 1455.) "[T]he milking sys’rem Was intended ’ro affect The ploin’riffs in
The some way cs all retail buyers," making The case "o Traditional products or
liabili’ry
5
negligence case in which economic damages ore no’r available." (Id. o’rp. 1456, cifing
Seely v. Whife (1965) 63 Col.2d 9, 18.) The cour’r concluded That based on these
feo’rures of The Transaction, i1 did no’r need To analyze ’rhe remaining four J’Aire foc’rors
To determine whether o special relationship existed. (Ibid.) ”If o du’ry of core To ovoid
economic injury existed in the circums’ronces of The presen’r case, every manufacturer
would become on insurer, potentially forever, against economic loss from negligen’r
defects in O product used for h‘s intended purpose. J’Aire nei’rher requires nor.suppor’rs
such a radical departure from Traditional notions of liability." (Ibid.)
Here, causes of oc’rion one 0nd Two are barred by the economic loss rule. Firs’r,
boTh causes of action seek recovery of purely economic losses: $36,080.00 for The cos’r
of The seed, $51 2,544.00 for profi’r, 0nd cm uns’ro’fed omoum‘ for “loss of reputation" (or
Ios’rbusiness 0nd profits ofiributoble To The defecfive seeds).
Second, both causes of oc’rion ore based on the Theory Tho’r ’rhe ”product
[plaintiff] bought is no’rworking properly." (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp.,
supra, 34 COIL4’rh of p. 988.) Specifically, plaintiff com‘ends tho’rThe seed wos defec’rive
0nd foiled To perform properly because "did
i’r no’r hove ’rhe vh‘oli’ry ’ro ’rhrive 0nd mature
im‘o o commercially satisfactory crop.” (SAC, 1] 12.)
Finally, courts hove found ’rho’r negligence claims precisely like The ones ploin’riff
now osser’rs — e.g., o products liability negligence claim based on ’rhe con’renfion Tho’r
seed foiled To perform os expected, causing the grower’s crop ’ro foil - ore barred by
The economic loss rule. (See Agricola Baja Besf v. Harris Moron Seed Co. (Agricola) (SD.
Col. 2014) 44 F.Supp.3d 974, 988 [applying Colif. Low]); see also King v. Hilfon—Dovis (3d
Cir. 1988) 855 F.2d 1047, 1052; Everkrisp Vegefobles, Inc. v.Tobioson Potato Co. (N. Dok.
2012) 870 F.Supp.2d 745; Two Rivers Co. v. Curflss Breeding Service (51h Cir. 1980) 624
F.2d 1242.)
In opposition, ploin’riffargues Tho’r: (1) The federal authority ci’red-‘ro showing ’rho’r
similar cases are barred by The economic loss rule, isnon—binding; 0nd (2) The parties
had o “special relofionship" preventing application of The economic loss rule — which is
evidenced by defendants’ representations Tho’r The Achiever seed was ideal for the
Cenfrol Son Joaquin Volley.
though
Firs’r, h‘
is True tho’r Agricola isnon-binding ou’rhorh‘y, because applies
i’r
California decisioncl low ’rothe some issue, i’r
ishighly persuasive. (See Tichinin v. Ch‘y of
Morgan Hill(2009) I77 Col.App.4’rh 1049, 1070, fn. 10.) The o’rher cases ore also .
persuasive and enfi’rled ’ro greo’r weight. (Efcheverry v. Tri—Ag Service, Inc. (2000) 22
Col.4Th 31 6, 320.) Trial cour’rs may consider Those decisions cs well, for The guiddnce
They provide. (People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Col.4’rh 466, 480.)
Nex’r, plaintiff's orgumen’r regarding ’rhe existence of o “special relationship” is
no’rconvincing. According ’ro ploinfiff, i1 is apparent (based Upon ’rhe represen’ro’rions
mode by defendants) That The seed was manufactured To be used for plainfiff’s distinct
purpose. However, under Greysfone Homes and Off, no special relo’rionship exis’rs,
where, Gs here, The allegedly defective product was manufactured for oll consumers
generally, ro’rher Than for plaintiff in particular.
The SAC locks any allegations indicating Tho’r Syngen’ro specially mode The
Achiever seed for plaintiff, or ’rhof Syngen‘ro sold ’rhe seed directly ’ro plaintiff with
knowledge of plaintiff's specific business. To The confrory, plaintiff alleges tho?
Syngem‘a's website — o source necessarily directed o’r allconsumers, no’r jus’rplaintiff —
described The seed cs on “[i]deol vorie’ty-for ho’r climates." (SAC, 1] 19.) Since ’rhe
infernef is o resource accessed by The general public, This allegation isan indication
’rho’r Syngenfo mode The seed for The general retail buyer, nof plaintiff in particular.
In addition; The SAC alleges That The Achiever seed ploim‘iff purchased was “Up
’roThree years old of ’rhe Time of The sole." (SAC, 1] 15.)So The seed cannot conceivably
hove been manufactured with ploinfiff's 20] 7 purchase of The seed in mind. Moreover,
0nd equally fatal ’roplaintiff's claims, There is no allegation ’rho’r Syngenfo's
manufacture cmd sole of ’rhe seed involved ony transaction between Syngen’ro and the
plaintiff; rather, The SAC alleges Tho’r plaintiff purchased The seed from defendant TS&L.
(See SAC, 1] 8.) And any representations by TS&L‘s ogen’rs do no’r,0nd conno’r, establish
q special relationship between plaintiff and Syngem‘o. (See, e.g., Greysfone Homes,
supra, 168 Cal.AppA’rh of p. 123] [concluding ’rhc’r Transactions be’rween ’rhe plaintiff
0nd o’rher parties did no’r create c: special relationship wh‘h The defendant
manufactured.)
Plaintiff olso seems To contend Thon‘ ’rhe foc’r tho’rifs form is located inFresno, c1 V
ho’rclimate, creates the required special relationship. (See Opposition, filed: 4/5/19, p.
4.) No’r so, Gs sfo’red in Off:
“[i]fo du’ry of core ’ro ovoid economic injury existed in The circumstances of the
present case, every mcnufoc’rurer would become on insurer, potentially forever,
ogoins’r economic loss from negligen’r defects in o product used for intended
i’rs
purpose." (Off v. AIfo-Lovol, supra, 31 Col.App.4’rh o’rp. 1456.)
Every product hos o particular use — in The words of Off, on “intended purpose." (Ibid)
The fact fho’r plaintiff used The Achieve; seed for ifs allegedly intended purpose -
wifhsfonding hot climates - does not creo’re o “special relationship" between ploim‘iff
0nd Syngen’ro. Plaintiff was no different from any other consumer choosing To buy The
Achiever seed. If selecting o product based on purported
i’rs benefits creo’red o
“special relationship," Then every manufacturer would be returned To ’rhe posi’rion of
being on insurer ogoins’r economic losses of ’rhe consumer, which is exoc’rly who’r the
‘
economic loss rule 0nd the special relationship exception ore intended To ovoid.
Causes of Acfion Three & Four
Under the economic loss rule, o misrepresentation claim asserting economic
losses will be barred unless The ploin’riff alleges bo’rh ’rhof The defendant mode. on
affirmative misrepresentation, and ’rho’r ’rhe defendant's misrepresentation exposed the
ploin’riff ’ro“personal damages independenf of The plaintiff's economic loss." (Robinson
Helicopfer Co. v. Dona Corp., supra, 34 Col.4’rh of p. 993; see also Crystal Springs
Upland Sch. v. Fieldfurf USA, Inc. (Crysfol Springs) (ND. Col. 2016) 219 F.Supp.3d 962, 970
[“A negligen’r misrepresentation claim paralleling a contract claim ’rho’tprays only for
economic damages will be barred by ’rhe economic loss rule unless ’rhe plaintiff alleges
both That the defendant mode on affirmative misrepresentation, and 1‘th The
defendon’r s misrepresen’rofion exposed The plaintiff To independent personal
liability. "].
)
Here, causes of oc’rion Three 0nd four ore bo’rh barred by ’rhé economic loss rule
because plaintiff foils’ro allege personal damages independent of ony economic loss.
In opposition, plaintiff argues That in alleging harm To reputation, she satisfies the
“personal liability” 0nd ”personal damages" exceptions pursuant ’ro Robinson 4
Helicopter ond Crysfol Springs. This argument isno’r persuasive. Firs’r, regarding Robinson
Helicopfer in particular, ’rhe "personal damages" discussed Therein related ’roliabilityfor
personal injuries “if c1helicopter crashed" due To faulty clutches. (Robinson Helicopfer
Co. v. Dona Corp., supra, 34 Co|.4’rh GT p. 991 .)There is no indication That The cour’r
intended i’rsruling apply ’ro repUToT‘ionol damages such Gs Those now being alleged. This
is likely because such ore not grounds for liobili’ry, but rather "consequent loss of profits.”
Reputational damages ore "consequent loss of profi’rs" because They represent
The Ios’rbenefit of o contractual bargain. They ore ’rhefrustrated soles To ’rhird por’ries or
los’r business goodwill, owing To one por’ry’s failure To perform sofisfoqforily. As such, ’rhe
application of ’rhe economic loss rule ’ro reputationol injury is quite straightforward.
Defendon’r also argues fho’r cause of action four foils because ploinfiff foils To
adequately allege reliance. However, os ’rhe above disCussed Issue is disposifive, the
remaining orgumen’rs will nof be addressed.
Pursuant ’roCalifornia Rules of Court, rule 3. 1312(0), 0nd Code of Civil Procedure
section 1019. 5, subdivision (o), no further wrifien order Is necessary. The minute order
adopting This Tentative ruling willserve Gs The order of the cour’r 0nd service by the clerk
will constitute notice of The order.
Tentative Ruling I
Issued By: RTM on 4/19/19
(Judge‘s initials)
-
(Do’re)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA — COUNTY 0F FRESNO FOR COURTUSEONLY
CivilDepartment, Central Division
1 130
“O" Street
Fresno, California 93724-0002
(559) 457-2000
TITLE OF CASE:
\firginia Sarabian vs. Syngenta Seeds, LLC
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING Cfisgigg'gig‘g‘;
|certify that |am not a party to this cause and that a true copy of the:
4-23-19 MINUTE ORDER
was placed in a sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below
following our ordinary business practice. lam readily familiar with this court’s practice for collecting and processing
it is deposited
correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing,
in
the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid.
1'
f.
Place of mailing: Fresno,California 93724—0002
0n Date: 04/23/201 9 Clerk, by . Deputy
Theodore W. Hoppe Kara Persson
Hoppe Law Group Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
680 W Shaw Ste 207 101 W. Broadway Suite 2000
Fresno, CA 93704 San Diego, CA 92101
D Clerk's Certificate of Mailing Additional Address Page Attached
TGN-06b R08-06 CLERK‘S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
Preview
‘ SUPERIOR C0_URT OF, CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO Entered by: Civil Department -Non-Limited ,‘ TITLE 6F CASE: _Virginia Sarabian vs. Syngenta Seeds, LLC ' I Case Number: LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER ‘ a 186ECG02994 Hearing Date: April 24, 2019 From Chambers: DemurrerlMotion to Strike Department: 403 Judge/Temp. Judge: McGuire, Rosemary Court Clerk: Garcia, Sam Reporter/Tape: Not Reported Appearing Parties: _ Plaintiff: , Defendant: Counsel: No Appearances Counsel: No Appearances [ ] Off Calendar [ ]Continued to [ ]Setfor _ at _ Dept. __ for _ [ ] Submitted on points and authorities wifh/without argument. [ ] Matter isargued and submitted. [ ] Upon filing of points and authorities. ]Motién isgranted [ ]in part and denied in part. [ ]Motion isdenied [ ]with/withoutprejudice. [ [x] Matter having been previously taken under advisement on 4-23-19, the court now rules. [ ]Demurrer [ ]overruled [ ]sustained. with _ daysto [ ]answer [ ]aménd [x ]Tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. No further order is necessary. [x Pursuant to CRC 3.1312(a) and CCP section 1019.5(a), no further order is necessary. The minute order ]> ' adopting the tentative ruling'serves as the order of the court. [x] Service by the clerk will constitute notice ofrthe order. [x] See attached ‘copy of theTentative Rulihg. [ ] Judgment debtor_ sworn and examined. [ ] Judgment debtor _ failed to appear. Bench warrant issued in the amount of $ __ JUDGMENT: [ >] Money damages [ ]Default [ ]Other __ entered in the amountof: Principal $_ |nterest$_ Costs $_ Attorney fees $_ Total $_ [ ] Claim of'exemption [ ] granted [ ] denied. Court orders withholdings modified to $_‘_ per_ FURTHER, COURT ORDERS: Monies held by levying officer to be [ ] released tojudgment creditor. [] returned tojudgment debtor. [ ] [ ] $_ to be released to judgment creditor and balance returned to judgment debtor. [ ] Levying Officer, County of _, notified. [ ]Writ to issue [ ] Notice to be filed within 15 days. [ ] Restitution of Premises [ ]Other: _ cv—14b R0348 |.__.I_A__. r--— LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER (30) Tentative Ruling Re: Virginia Sarabian v. Syngenfa Seeds, LLC Superior Court No. 18CECGO2994 Hearing Date: April 23, 2019 (Dept. 403) Motions: Defendant Syngem‘o Seeds LLC‘s Demurrer To portions of The _ Second Amended Complaint Defendon’r Syngen’ro Seeds LLC' s Motion To S’rrikeThe Second Amended Comploin’r Tentative Ruling: To sustain'defendon’r's demurrer in i’rs en’rire’ry f6 causes of action one, Two, Three 0nd fourwi’rhin The second amended complaint. - Defendant‘s motion 1‘0 strike isoff calendar os no moving papers were filAed. Plainfiff isgranted fen days leave fo amend. All changes musf be in bold. The Time in which on amendment may be filed will run from Service by The Clerk of fhe minufe order. Explanation: Defendon’r Syngenfc Seeds, LLC demurs To the following causes of oc’rion: (1) negligence (production and delivery of defective seed); (2) negligence (sole of old seed); (3) negligen’r misrepresentation; 0nd (4) intentional misrepresentation. Defendant argues Thon‘ The damages which plaintiff seeks To recover based Upon ’rhese claims ore purely economic Thus They ore barred by' ’rhe economic loss rule. This argument is addressed below. The Economic Loss Rule The economic loss rule provides: where o purchaser's expectations in o sole ore frustrated because The product he bought is noT working properly, his remedy issaid ’ro be in contract alone, for he hos suffered only economic losses. (Robinson Helicopfer C0,, Inc. v. Dana Corp. (Robinson Helicopfer) (2004) 34 Col.4’rh 979, 988.) Quite simply, ’rhe economic loss rule preven’r‘s ’rhe law of ‘con’rroc’r 0nd ’rhe low of tort from dissolving one im‘o The other. (Food Sofefy Nef Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc. (201 2) 209 Cal.AppAfh H 18, 1130.) “[E]conomic loss consists of dqmoges-for inadequate value, costs of repair 0nd replacement of The defective producf or consequent loss of profi’rs—wifhou’r any claim of personal injury or damages ’ro other property." (Id. of p. ‘ 1130, fn. 4.) Causes of Acfion One & Two “[T]he economic loss rule provides ThoT enfifies generally hove no duty To prevem‘ purely economic loss ’roo po’rem‘iol plaintiff. Under ’rhe common low, i’r isonly where o ‘speciol relofionship' exis’rs,giving rise To such c1du’ry, That c1 plaintiff may recover purely economic loss." (Greysfone Homes, Inc. v. Midfec, Inc. (2008) 168 Col.App.4’rh 1194, 1215, citing J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory (J’Aire) (1979) 24 Cal.3d 799, 804- 805 & OH v. AIfa—Lovol Agri, Inc. (Off) (1995) 31 Col.App.4’rh 1439, 1448.) Deferminofion of whether o special relofionship exists is subject to o 6—por’r ’res’r: ”(1) the exfen’r ’ro which The fronsoc’rion was intended ’ro affect ’rhe plaintiff, (2) the foreseeabilify of harm ’ro ’rhe plaintiff, (3) ’rhe degree of certainty ’rhoT the plaintiff suffered injury, (4) the closeness of Theconnecfion between ’rhe defendant's conduct 0nd The injury suffered, (5) The moral blame o’rfoched To ’rhe defendant‘s conduct 0nd (6) ’rhe policy of preventing fu’rure harm.” (J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory, supra, 24 COLBd 0T p. 804.) In summary, recovery of purely economic damages will be limited To instances “where The risk of harm is foreseeable 0nd is closely connected wi’rh The defendon’r's conduct, where damages ore noT wholly speculative and ’rhe injury is n01 port of ’rhe plaintiff‘s ordinary business risk." (Off v. Alfo—Lovol, supra, 31 Cal.AppATh of p. 1450.) However, h‘ has repeatedly been held ’rho’r o “special relationship” cannot be established, unless The transaction o’rissue wos characterized by o “close relationship" befween The defendant 0nd The plaintiff. (See, e.g., Greysfone Homes v. Midfec, supra, 168 Cal.AppAfh OT pp. 1229-1 231 [discussing Fieldsfone Co. v. Briggs Plumbing ProducTs, Inc. (1997) 54 Col.App.4Th 357, 368—369, Zamora v. Shell Oil Co. (1997) 55 Cal.AppA’rh 204, 0nd Oh‘ v. AlfoaLoval, supra. 31 Col.App.4Th OT p. 1439].) ln Greysfone Homes, The cour’r had ’ro determine whether the special relationship exception applied ’ro The sole of o manufacturer's plumbing fifiings to o builder. The’ cour’r reviewed cases in which courts hod applied J’Aire, 0nd determined Thof in each case, ’rhe absence of a close relationship was disposi’riVe of The J’Aire fes’r,0nd precluded c1finding of a “special relo’rionship.” (Id. of pp. 1229-1231 .) The court also distinguished The relo’rionship between o manufacturer 0nd the “re’roilbuyer 0T large," from ’rhe sifuq’rion in which The product manufacturer “specially mode The [product] for ’rhe benefi’r of ’rhe [consumer].” (Id.o’r pp. 1230-1231 .)“[O]rdinory product manufacturers having no special knowledge of The manner in which their products will be used by o particular builder do no’r hove o ‘speci'ol relationship‘ wi’rh ’rhe builder That would support a negligence cause of action for economic losses pursuom‘ ’ro J’Aire." (Id.of p. 1231 .) Noting fhc’r ’rhe manufacturer had mode The plumbing fifiings for onofher em‘i’ry which; in Turn, incorporated ’rhem im‘o o plumbing sys’rem eventually sold ’ro the builder, ’rhe Greysfone Homes court concluded The transaction was no’r characterized by o “special relationship" between ’rhe monufccfurer'dnd builder. (Ibid.) Similarly, in Off, the court applied J’Aire ’rodetermine whether o manufacturer of milking machines had o “special relo’rionship" wi’rh ploinfiff dairy owners. (OH v. Alfa- Loval, supra, 31 Cal.App'ATh of pp. 1455-1456.) ITnoted fho’r ”neither ’rhe pleadings nor The evidence suggests the 1970 milking system was ‘inTended To offec’r' the plaintiffs in cmy way particular To The plaintiffs, cs opposed To oll potential purchasers of The equipment." (Id. 0T p. 1455.) "[T]he milking sys’rem Was intended ’ro affect The ploin’riffs in The some way cs all retail buyers," making The case "o Traditional products or liabili’ry 5 negligence case in which economic damages ore no’r available." (Id. o’rp. 1456, cifing Seely v. Whife (1965) 63 Col.2d 9, 18.) The cour’r concluded That based on these feo’rures of The Transaction, i1 did no’r need To analyze ’rhe remaining four J’Aire foc’rors To determine whether o special relationship existed. (Ibid.) ”If o du’ry of core To ovoid economic injury existed in the circums’ronces of The presen’r case, every manufacturer would become on insurer, potentially forever, against economic loss from negligen’r defects in O product used for h‘s intended purpose. J’Aire nei’rher requires nor.suppor’rs such a radical departure from Traditional notions of liability." (Ibid.) Here, causes of oc’rion one 0nd Two are barred by the economic loss rule. Firs’r, boTh causes of action seek recovery of purely economic losses: $36,080.00 for The cos’r of The seed, $51 2,544.00 for profi’r, 0nd cm uns’ro’fed omoum‘ for “loss of reputation" (or Ios’rbusiness 0nd profits ofiributoble To The defecfive seeds). Second, both causes of oc’rion ore based on the Theory Tho’r ’rhe ”product [plaintiff] bought is no’rworking properly." (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp., supra, 34 COIL4’rh of p. 988.) Specifically, plaintiff com‘ends tho’rThe seed wos defec’rive 0nd foiled To perform properly because "did i’r no’r hove ’rhe vh‘oli’ry ’ro ’rhrive 0nd mature im‘o o commercially satisfactory crop.” (SAC, 1] 12.) Finally, courts hove found ’rho’r negligence claims precisely like The ones ploin’riff now osser’rs — e.g., o products liability negligence claim based on ’rhe con’renfion Tho’r seed foiled To perform os expected, causing the grower’s crop ’ro foil - ore barred by The economic loss rule. (See Agricola Baja Besf v. Harris Moron Seed Co. (Agricola) (SD. Col. 2014) 44 F.Supp.3d 974, 988 [applying Colif. Low]); see also King v. Hilfon—Dovis (3d Cir. 1988) 855 F.2d 1047, 1052; Everkrisp Vegefobles, Inc. v.Tobioson Potato Co. (N. Dok. 2012) 870 F.Supp.2d 745; Two Rivers Co. v. Curflss Breeding Service (51h Cir. 1980) 624 F.2d 1242.) In opposition, ploin’riffargues Tho’r: (1) The federal authority ci’red-‘ro showing ’rho’r similar cases are barred by The economic loss rule, isnon—binding; 0nd (2) The parties had o “special relofionship" preventing application of The economic loss rule — which is evidenced by defendants’ representations Tho’r The Achiever seed was ideal for the Cenfrol Son Joaquin Volley. though Firs’r, h‘ is True tho’r Agricola isnon-binding ou’rhorh‘y, because applies i’r California decisioncl low ’rothe some issue, i’r ishighly persuasive. (See Tichinin v. Ch‘y of Morgan Hill(2009) I77 Col.App.4’rh 1049, 1070, fn. 10.) The o’rher cases ore also . persuasive and enfi’rled ’ro greo’r weight. (Efcheverry v. Tri—Ag Service, Inc. (2000) 22 Col.4Th 31 6, 320.) Trial cour’rs may consider Those decisions cs well, for The guiddnce They provide. (People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Col.4’rh 466, 480.) Nex’r, plaintiff's orgumen’r regarding ’rhe existence of o “special relationship” is no’rconvincing. According ’ro ploinfiff, i1 is apparent (based Upon ’rhe represen’ro’rions mode by defendants) That The seed was manufactured To be used for plainfiff’s distinct purpose. However, under Greysfone Homes and Off, no special relo’rionship exis’rs, where, Gs here, The allegedly defective product was manufactured for oll consumers generally, ro’rher Than for plaintiff in particular. The SAC locks any allegations indicating Tho’r Syngen’ro specially mode The Achiever seed for plaintiff, or ’rhof Syngen‘ro sold ’rhe seed directly ’ro plaintiff with knowledge of plaintiff's specific business. To The confrory, plaintiff alleges tho? Syngem‘a's website — o source necessarily directed o’r allconsumers, no’r jus’rplaintiff — described The seed cs on “[i]deol vorie’ty-for ho’r climates." (SAC, 1] 19.) Since ’rhe infernef is o resource accessed by The general public, This allegation isan indication ’rho’r Syngenfo mode The seed for The general retail buyer, nof plaintiff in particular. In addition; The SAC alleges That The Achiever seed ploim‘iff purchased was “Up ’roThree years old of ’rhe Time of The sole." (SAC, 1] 15.)So The seed cannot conceivably hove been manufactured with ploinfiff's 20] 7 purchase of The seed in mind. Moreover, 0nd equally fatal ’roplaintiff's claims, There is no allegation ’rho’r Syngenfo's manufacture cmd sole of ’rhe seed involved ony transaction between Syngen’ro and the plaintiff; rather, The SAC alleges Tho’r plaintiff purchased The seed from defendant TS&L. (See SAC, 1] 8.) And any representations by TS&L‘s ogen’rs do no’r,0nd conno’r, establish q special relationship between plaintiff and Syngem‘o. (See, e.g., Greysfone Homes, supra, 168 Cal.AppA’rh of p. 123] [concluding ’rhc’r Transactions be’rween ’rhe plaintiff 0nd o’rher parties did no’r create c: special relationship wh‘h The defendant manufactured.) Plaintiff olso seems To contend Thon‘ ’rhe foc’r tho’rifs form is located inFresno, c1 V ho’rclimate, creates the required special relationship. (See Opposition, filed: 4/5/19, p. 4.) No’r so, Gs sfo’red in Off: “[i]fo du’ry of core ’ro ovoid economic injury existed in The circumstances of the present case, every mcnufoc’rurer would become on insurer, potentially forever, ogoins’r economic loss from negligen’r defects in o product used for intended i’rs purpose." (Off v. AIfo-Lovol, supra, 31 Col.App.4’rh o’rp. 1456.) Every product hos o particular use — in The words of Off, on “intended purpose." (Ibid) The fact fho’r plaintiff used The Achieve; seed for ifs allegedly intended purpose - wifhsfonding hot climates - does not creo’re o “special relationship" between ploim‘iff 0nd Syngen’ro. Plaintiff was no different from any other consumer choosing To buy The Achiever seed. If selecting o product based on purported i’rs benefits creo’red o “special relationship," Then every manufacturer would be returned To ’rhe posi’rion of being on insurer ogoins’r economic losses of ’rhe consumer, which is exoc’rly who’r the ‘ economic loss rule 0nd the special relationship exception ore intended To ovoid. Causes of Acfion Three & Four Under the economic loss rule, o misrepresentation claim asserting economic losses will be barred unless The ploin’riff alleges bo’rh ’rhof The defendant mode. on affirmative misrepresentation, and ’rho’r ’rhe defendant's misrepresentation exposed the ploin’riff ’ro“personal damages independenf of The plaintiff's economic loss." (Robinson Helicopfer Co. v. Dona Corp., supra, 34 Col.4’rh of p. 993; see also Crystal Springs Upland Sch. v. Fieldfurf USA, Inc. (Crysfol Springs) (ND. Col. 2016) 219 F.Supp.3d 962, 970 [“A negligen’r misrepresentation claim paralleling a contract claim ’rho’tprays only for economic damages will be barred by ’rhe economic loss rule unless ’rhe plaintiff alleges both That the defendant mode on affirmative misrepresentation, and 1‘th The defendon’r s misrepresen’rofion exposed The plaintiff To independent personal liability. "]. ) Here, causes of oc’rion Three 0nd four ore bo’rh barred by ’rhé economic loss rule because plaintiff foils’ro allege personal damages independent of ony economic loss. In opposition, plaintiff argues That in alleging harm To reputation, she satisfies the “personal liability” 0nd ”personal damages" exceptions pursuant ’ro Robinson 4 Helicopter ond Crysfol Springs. This argument isno’r persuasive. Firs’r, regarding Robinson Helicopfer in particular, ’rhe "personal damages" discussed Therein related ’roliabilityfor personal injuries “if c1helicopter crashed" due To faulty clutches. (Robinson Helicopfer Co. v. Dona Corp., supra, 34 Co|.4’rh GT p. 991 .)There is no indication That The cour’r intended i’rsruling apply ’ro repUToT‘ionol damages such Gs Those now being alleged. This is likely because such ore not grounds for liobili’ry, but rather "consequent loss of profits.” Reputational damages ore "consequent loss of profi’rs" because They represent The Ios’rbenefit of o contractual bargain. They ore ’rhefrustrated soles To ’rhird por’ries or los’r business goodwill, owing To one por’ry’s failure To perform sofisfoqforily. As such, ’rhe application of ’rhe economic loss rule ’ro reputationol injury is quite straightforward. Defendon’r also argues fho’r cause of action four foils because ploinfiff foils To adequately allege reliance. However, os ’rhe above disCussed Issue is disposifive, the remaining orgumen’rs will nof be addressed. Pursuant ’roCalifornia Rules of Court, rule 3. 1312(0), 0nd Code of Civil Procedure section 1019. 5, subdivision (o), no further wrifien order Is necessary. The minute order adopting This Tentative ruling willserve Gs The order of the cour’r 0nd service by the clerk will constitute notice of The order. Tentative Ruling I Issued By: RTM on 4/19/19 (Judge‘s initials) - (Do’re) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA — COUNTY 0F FRESNO FOR COURTUSEONLY CivilDepartment, Central Division 1 130 “O" Street Fresno, California 93724-0002 (559) 457-2000 TITLE OF CASE: \firginia Sarabian vs. Syngenta Seeds, LLC CLERK'S CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING Cfisgigg'gig‘g‘; |certify that |am not a party to this cause and that a true copy of the: 4-23-19 MINUTE ORDER was placed in a sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below following our ordinary business practice. lam readily familiar with this court’s practice for collecting and processing it is deposited correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid. 1' f. Place of mailing: Fresno,California 93724—0002 0n Date: 04/23/201 9 Clerk, by . Deputy Theodore W. Hoppe Kara Persson Hoppe Law Group Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 680 W Shaw Ste 207 101 W. Broadway Suite 2000 Fresno, CA 93704 San Diego, CA 92101 D Clerk's Certificate of Mailing Additional Address Page Attached TGN-06b R08-06 CLERK‘S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING