Preview
* &
David R. Ongaro (State Bar No. 154698)
dongaro@ongarope.com
Kirsten McNelly Bibbes (State Bar No. 276308)
kbibbes@ongaropc.com LED
Glen Turner (State Bar No. 212417) ALAMEDA COUNTY
gturner@ongarope.com
ONGARO PC OCT 29 290
1604 Union Street OLERK OF THE SUPERIOR
San Francisco, CA 94123
COURT
Telephone: (415) 433-3900
She. + ea gig
Facsimile: (415) 433-3950
Attorneys for Defendant
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., f/k/a
AlliedSignal Inc.,Successor-In-Interest to
The Bendix Corporation
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
12
THO P. NGO and LISA T. TRAN, Case No. RG21113895
13
Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF GLEN TURNER IN
14 SUPPORT OF HONEYWELL
VS. INTERNATIONAL INC.’S DEMURRER
15 TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR FRAUD
16 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Date: | December 3, 2021
17 et al.,
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept.: 18
18 Defendants.
Judge: Hon. Jo-Lynne Q. Lee
19 Reservation ID: 073731081560
20 Accompanying Documents:
21 1. Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer
2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities
22
Complaint Filed: September 27, 2021
23
24
25
26
FAX
27
28
BY
DECLARATION OF GLEN TURNER ISO HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.’S DEMURRER
a + 8
I,Glen Turner, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:
l. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. | am counsel
with the law firm of Ongaro PC, attorneys of record for defendant Honeywell International Inc.,
J/k/a AlliedSignal Inc.,successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation (“Honeywell”). The facts
set forth are of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify, I could and would do so
competently.
2. On October 21, 2021, Honeywell and plaintiff's counsel, who have jointly litigated
several demurrers on plaintiffs’ fraud counts by Honeywell over the last two years, emailed to
meet and confer on dismissing the Third Cause of Action for Fraud. Because each party is well
10 aware of the other’s position, they agreed that more substantive meet and confer was not
11 necessary. Plaintiff did not agree to a dismissal. A true and correct copy of this email
12 correspondence isattached hereto as Exhibit A.
13 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B isa true and correct copy of the Court’s Order in
14 Reusser v.Honeywell International Inc., Alameda Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. RG20061330.
15 4, Attached hereto as Exhibit C isa true and correct copy of the Court’s Order in
16 Runne v. Amcord, Inc., Alameda Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. RG20061377.
17 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D isa true and correct copy of the Court’s Order in Hill
18 v.Johnson & Johnson, Alameda Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. RG21099490.
19 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E isa true and correct copy of the Court’s Order in
20 Helo v. Johnson & Johnson, Alameda Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. RG20064440.
21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
22 foregoing istrue and correct and of my personal knowledge, and executed inNorthport, Alabama
23 on October 29, 2021.
Be
24
25
Glen Turner
26
27
28
l
DECLARATION OF GLEN TURNER ISO HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.’S DEMURRER
EXHIBIT A
From: MartinNeira
To: PeterHoefs
Subject: RE:Ngo: Meet& ConferReHoneywellDemurrer
Date: Thursday,
October21,2021 1:15:40PM
Attachments: ATT Lj
Good afternoon Mr. Hoefs,
Unfortunately |cannot agree to your proposal. Ifit wishes to, Honeywell may file ademurrer
to Plaintiff'scause of action for fraud in this case too.
Respectfully yours,
Martin Neira
Martin Neira | Associate Attorney
Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood
A Professional Law Corporation
55 Harrison, Suite 400,
Oakland, CA 94607
T: (510) 302-1021
F: (510) 835-4913
From: Peter Hoefs
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 12:30 PM
To: Martin Neira
Subject: Ngo: Meet & Confer Re Honeywell Demurrer
Mr. Neira,
| writeto meet and confer with regarding plaintiffs’Third Cause of Actin for Fraud. Honeywell has
demurred to this cause ofaction filedby your firm several times, most recently inthe Hillmatter.
Each time, Honeywell’s demurrer has been sustained. To avoid any unnecessary motion practice,
willplaintiffs’agree to dismiss thiscause of action?
Ifyou wish to discuss further, |can be reached at the number below.
Peter W. Hoefs
ONGARO PC
1604 Union Street
San Francisco,CA 94123
CellPhone: (415) 260-9429
-
cy oefs@ongaropc.com
EXHIBIT B
Kazan, McClain, Satterley.Lyons, ONGARO Pc
Greenwood & Oberman Attn: Tumer, Glen
Attn: SatterleyEsq, Joseph D 1604 Union Street
55 Harrison Street San Francisco, CA 94123
Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94607
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
Rene C. Davidson Alameda County Courthouse
Reusser No. RG20061330
Plaintifi/Petitioner(s)
Order
VS.
Demurrer
Honeywell International,
Inc. Sustained
Defendant/Respondent(s)
(Abbreviated
Title)
The Demurrer was setforhearing on 09/25/2020 at 10:00AM inDepartment 18before theHonorable
Jo-Lynne Q. Lee. The Tentative Ruling was published and has not been contested.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The tentativeruling1s affirmedas follows: Defendant Honeywell International,Inc.'s
("Defendant")
Demurrer toplaintiffsKaren Reusser et al's("Plaintiffs")
Complaint's Fourth Cause of Action forFraud
isSUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs
shallfileand servea FirstAmended
Complaint no later
than Friday, October 9, 2020.
STANDARD OF LAW
"A demurrer teststhelegalsufficiencyof thefactual allegationsina complaint." (Redfearn v.Trader
Joe'sCo. (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 989, 996.) The Court must determine "whether the complaint alleges
factssufficienttostatea cause of actionor disclosesa complete defense."(Id.)The courtassumes "the
truthof theproperly pleaded factualallegations.factsthatreasonably can be inferredfrom those
expressly pleaded and mattersof which judicialnoticehas been taken." (Id.) "As ageneral rulein
testinga pleadingagainst a demurrer thefacts allegedinthe pleading aredeemed tobe true.however
improbable they may be."unless the"complaint contains allegationsoffact inconsistent
with attached
documents, orallegationscontrary tofactswhich arejudiciallynoticed." (DelE. Webb Corp. v.
StructuralMaterials Co, (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 593,604.) "The court does not,however, assume the
truthof contentions,deductions orconclusions of law." (Aubry v.Tri-City Hosp. Dist.(1992) 2 Cal.
4th 962, 967.) Courts "give thecomplaint a reasonable interpretation,
reading itasa whole and its
parts intheircontext." (Goncharov v.Uber Techs.,Inc. (2018) 19 Cal.App. 5th 1157, 1165.) Courts
"construe thecomplaint ‘liberally
...with aview to substantialjusticebetween the parties|.]'"
(Id.)
DEMURRER
Defendant demurs to theComplaint's Fourth Cause ofAction for Fraud on threegrounds: (1) Plaintiffs'
Fraud Cause of Action doesnot allegeuntruthful statementsspecificto Defendant; (2)Plaintiffs
do not
allegefacts sufficient
to createa dutyto disclosefactsby Defendant toPlaintiffs'
decedent, CarlH.
Reusser ("Decedent"); and (3)Plaintiffs'
Fraud Cause of Action isnot pleaded withsufficient
particularity.
(Notice of Motion atp. 2:9-24.)
Plaintiffs'
Complaint filedon 5/15/2020 allegesinrelevant part:
Order
' @ e
I. General Allegations.
Decedent was exposed to asbestos-containingfrictionmaterialfrom 1951 to2009, when he worked on
farms and various equipment "includingwork on asbestos-containing brakes,clutches,gaskets and other
asbestos-containingparts."(Complaint's "General Allegations" at§ VI.) Also,General Allegations at§
V contain various allegationsasto the"stateof theart" and industrial
knowledge of thedangers of
asbestos.
II. AllegationsSpecificto Defendant.
PlaintiffsallegethatDefendant began marketing itsBendix asbestos-containing brakesin 1939, and
untilat least1983 and allof Defendant's automotive breaks were 25 to50 percent asbestos by weight.
(4th Cause of Action at§§ III(a)-(c).)Plaintiffs
furtherallegethatby the 1944, Defendant had installed
a ventilationsystem atitsmanufacturing facility
inTroy, New York toassistin theremoval of dust
from itsoperations,and offered dust masks to itsmixer operators. (Id.at§ IL]I(e).)
Plaintiffs
allege thatby the 1950s, Defendant implemented amedical monitoring program of employees
atthat facility,
includingannual chest X-rays. (Id.at § III(f).)
Plaintiffs
allege thatDefendant
understood in the1950s and 1960s thatthe normal and intended use ofitsbrakes requiredthe removal
of asbestos-containingcomponents. (Id.at §III(h).)In 1956, theNew York StateDepartment of
Labor adopted regulationssettingthemaximum allowable concentration forairborne asbestoswhich
applied toDefendant's Troy facility.(SIII(i).)
PlaintiffsstatethatDefendant did not conduct air-
sampling studies until1972, when itwas requiredto do soto comply with OSHA regulations. Those
studiespurportedly showed thatthe asbestosdust counts exceeded thethen-mandated OSHA limits.(§
TII(qj).)
Plaintiffs
further allegethatdocuments produced by Defendant inprior discoverydemonstrated
Defendant's knowledge ofthe hazards ofasbestos. (Id.at§ III(k).)
Plaintiffs
allege thatin 1966,
Defendant's Directorof Purchases wrote a memorandum enclosinga copy of an article
discussing the
healthhazards of asbestos,including asbestosisand lung cancer. (§ III(I)-(m))He alsoallegedly
acknowledged in amemorandum thatDefendant kept afileon thesubject ofasbestos and lung cancer
since atleast1949. (§III(n).)Plaintiffsalsoallegevarious other sourcesof information regardingthe
healthhazards of asbestos receivedby Defendant, including evidence linkingasbestosexposure to
asbestosis,lung cancer,and mesothelioma. ($§ III(o)-(r).)
By 1978, Defendant allegedlyknew thatasbestos exposure was harmful notonly tobrake mechanics
but alsotheirfamily members at riskoftake-home exposure to asbestoscarried home on workers'
clothing. (Id.at§ III(s).)Plaintiffs
allegethatdespite thisknowledge, Defendant didnot placeany
warnings on itspackaging forbrakes until1973, and did notplace any warnings about the risksof
cancer until1986. ($§ III(t)-(v).)
Plaintiffs
furtherallegethat despiteknowledge ofthe healthhazards,
Defendant continuedto market asbestos-containingbrake frictionliningsuntil2001. (§IL(Qw).)
Plaintiffs
further allegethatDefendant fraudulentlymarketed theirBendix brake linings
by misleading
consumers thatthe product was safein terms ofreducing the likelihoodoftrafficaccidents. (Id.
at §§
ILI(x)-(cc).)
PlaintiffsallegethatDefendant owed Decedent aduty to disclosefactsbecause itwas in arelationship
with Decedent that gave risetoa duty todisclose thesefacts.(Id.at§ III(dd).)The Complaint alleges
that Defendant marketed itsasbestos-containing brakesand brake components to "UAS" where
Decedent worked as a salesman and hiscompensation was determined solelyby hisvolume ofsales and
laterpurchased UAS. (Ibid.)However, Defendant pointsout thatthisportion ofthe Complaint appears
to be lifted
verbatim from the Complaint inanother asbestostortslawsuit. (Moving MPA atp. 2 atfn
1.) In theOpp MPA, Plaintiffsexclude onlythis allegationfrom theirsummary of theComplaint's
allegations,stronglysuggesting thatDecedent did not,in fact,everwork foror purchase UAS. (Opp.
MPA atpp. 6:8-10:16.)
III.Collectiveallegationsagainstall"Automotive Defendants"
The Complaint makes thefollowing allegationsagainstallAutomotive Defendants, jointly:
Order
Plaintiffsallegethat"each Defendant falselyrepresented thattheproducts those marketed, used, sold,
supplied,or specifiedfor usewere nothazardous," thatthose misrepresentationswere made during
plaintiff's
power or exposure to asbestosfor which Defendants areresponsible,"and. pleadingin the
disjunctive,thatthealleged misrepresentationwere made in oneof threepossible fashions,either
directlytoDecedent, to a group of persons includingDecedent. or tothirdpartieswith the intention
and
expectation thatthesemisrepresentations would be repeated toDecedent. (Id.at p.21:16-23.) Plaintiffs
allegethat cach automotive defendant eitherknew the representationswere falseor made them
recklesslyand without regard forthe truth;thateach defendant intendedfor Decedent and/or thesame
classof persons would relyon thosemisrepresentations; and thatDecedent's relianceon those
misrepresentations was a substantialfactorinhis development of mesothelioma. (Id.at pp. 21:24-22:3.)
Plaintiffs
allege thatcach automotive defendant isliablefor fraudulentconcealment because "each
defendant...stated
that theirproducts could beused safely whileconcealing thatthey were in factlethal
because they releasedasbestos fibers."(Id.atp. 22:5-11.)
Plaintiffsallegethat"each Defendant (1)had exclusive knowledge ofmaterialfacts notknown to
|Decedent] (as setforthabove), (ii)
activelyconcealed these materialfacts from |Decedent],(iii)
made
partialrepresentationsbut alsosuppressed material facts,asset forthabove, and (iv)made factual
representations,butdid not disclosefactsthatmaterially qualifiedthoserepresentations.Such
nondisclosures includedDefendants representingtheirproducts were safe when used as intendedand as
fitforthe particularpurpose forwhich theywere marketed, whilenot disclosingthatthese products
contained asbestosthat would become airborne during theintended and/foreseeableuse ofthe products,
rendering them dangerous and unfit fortheirintended purpose. (Id.
at p.22:12-20.)
Plaintiffsallegethateach defendant "enteredinto arelationshipand/or transactionwith [Decedent]
sufficienttogive risetoa duty todisclose." Decedent "used or otherwise encountered Defendants
products thatwere purchased eitherdirectlyfrom Defendants, Defendants’ authorizeddealer orsupplier,
or any otherentityupon which Defendants derived a monetary benefit." (Id.atp. 22:21-27.) Plaintiffs
allegethat Decadent did notknow the concealed facts,
that "Defendants" intended todeceive Decedent
by concealing them, thatDecedent would have behaved differently
if theinformationhad been disclosed,
and that "eachDefendant's concealment was a substantialfactorincausing [Decedent's]mesothelioma
and death." (Id.,
pp. 22:28-23:8.)
PlaintiffsallegethatDefendants were aware thattheirconspirators,which included allco-Defendants
and others,planned to commit fraudulentmisrepresentation" or"fraudulentconcealment" that
"Defendants agreed with theircoconspirators and intendedthat the[fraudulent
misrepresentations/fraudulentconcealments] be committed," and that each Defendant'sparticipation"
was asubstantialfactor incausing Decedent's harm. (Id.atp. 23:9-23.) The Complaint alsocontains
general allegations
that alldefendants owed Decedent a duty toabstain from injuringhis person,
property or rightsand thatdefendants violatedtheirdutiesto Decedent. (Id.at pp.23:25-24:12.)
IV. FINDINGS
The elements of fraudulentmisrepresentation are:"a representation,
usually of fact,
which isfalse,
knowledge ofitsfalsity,intent
to defraud,justifiablerelianceupon the misrepresentation,and damage
resultingfrom thatjustifiablereliance."(Stanfieldv.Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App. 3d 59,72-73.)
"The required elements forfraudulent concealment are(1) concealment or suppression ofa material
fact:(2) by adefendant with a dutyto disclosethe fact tothe plaintiff:
(3)thedefendant intended to
defraud the plaintiff
by intentionally
concealing or suppressing the fact:(4)the plaintiff
was unaware of
the factand would not have acted ashe or she did if heor shehad known of theconcealed or suppressed
fact:and (5) plaintiff
sustaineddamage as a resultof the concealment or suppression ofthe fact."
(Hambrick v.Healthcare PartnersMed. Grp.,Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App. 4th 124, 162.)
Defendant contendsthat Plaintiffs
failto allegefactswith therequisiteparticularity
to support a
fraudulent misrepresentationclaim. "Every element ofthe cause ofaction forfraud must be allegedin
the propermanner and the factsconstitutingthefraud must be allegedwith sufficientspecificity
to
allow defendant tounderstand fullythe nature ofthe charge made." (Stanfield,
supra, 220 Cal. App.3d
at 73.) This "strict
requirement" of pleading "necessitates
pleading factswhich 'show how, when,
where, to whom, and by what means therepresentationswere tendered."" (Id.)"The requirement of
specificityina fraudaction againsta corporation requiresthe plaintiff
toallegethe names ofthe
Order
persons who made the allegedlyfraudulent representations,
theirauthorityto speak,to whom they
spoke, what they saidor wrote, and when itwas saidor written."(Tarmann v. State FarmMut. Auto.
Ins.Co. (1991) 2 Cal. App. 4th 153, 157.)
Here, Plaintiffs
have not pled amisrepresentation claim with therequired specificity.
The onlyspecific
affirmativerepresentationsDefendant isallegedto have made about itsasbestos-containingbrake parts
isthat theywere betterat preventing traffic
accidents thancheaper brake parts.These alleged
representationscannot reasonably be read toconstituteaffirmativerepresentationsthat Defendant's
asbestos-containingbrake parts could notcause cancer or otherasbestos-relateddiseases oradverse
healthconditions. Further,theComplaint does not allegefactssufficienttoshow thatDefendant
engaged ina deliberatescheme to deceivethe publicabout the possiblehealth consequences of working
with itsasbestos-containingbrake parts,so as tomake thepresent case analogous todefendant cigarette
manufacturers inWhitely v. PhilipMorris Inc.(2004) 117 Cal_-App.4th635, 681, citedin Plaintiffs’
Opp. MPA.
Wherefore, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant's Demurrer to Plaintiffs’
fraudulent misrepresentation
claim WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
Defendant furtherassertsthatPlaintiffs
have notalleged sufficient
factsto establishDefendant'sduty to
Decedent to maintain a cause ofaction forfraud by nondisclosure. However, thecourt does nothave to
decide thefraudulent concealment issueat thistime,because the fourth causeof actionincludes an
affirmativemisrepresentation claim againstDefendant and the court issustainingthe demurrer with
leaveto amend as tothatclaim. Thus, even if the
court determined thatPlaintiffscannot stateacause of
action forfraud by non-disclosureas a matterof law, thiswould not dispose ofthe fourthcause of
action entirely.
Finally,Defendant attacksthesufficiency ofthe conspiracy claim.(Moving MPA atp. 15:1-9.)
However, the Court declinestorule on thisportionof Defendants’ Demurrer because Defendant does
not raisethisissuein itsNotice ofMotion. Further, "[s|tandingalone,a conspiracy does no harm and
engenders no tortliability.
Itmust be activatedby the commission ofan actual tort."
(Applied
Equipment Corp. v. LittonSaudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 511.) Because the Court has not
yet determined whether Plaintiffs
have adequately pleaded a cause ofaction againstDefendant sounding
in fraudulentmisrepresentationor fraudulent concealment, itisunnecessary forthe Court to consider
Plaintiffs’
relatedconspiracy tocommit fraudulent misrepresentationor fraudulentconcealment claims.
The Court notes,however, thatPlaintiffs'
conspiracy claims appear to allegeonly legalconclusionswith
no particularizedfactsallegedtending to show thatDefendant engaged in aconspiracy with anyone to
commit a fraudulentact. (See Complaint at p.23:9-23.)
Dated: 09/25/2020 LS ’ G
’
Facsimile
Judge Jo-LynneQ. Lee
Order
SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER:
Reusser VS Honeywell International.
Inc. RG20061330
ADDITIONAL ADDRESSEES
Manning Gross + Massenberg LLP
Attn: Cormier, JenniferA.
201 Spear St.
18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Prindle,Goetz, Barnes & ReinholtzLLP
Attn: Milbrodt, Jeremy D.
1340 Treat Blvd.
Suite 120
Walnut Creek, CA 94597|
Hassard Bonnington LLP
Attn: Hartley, Edward E.
275 Battery St.
Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94111-3941
Hugo Parker, LLP
Attn: Hugo, Edward R.
240 Stockton Street
8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Bennett, Samuelsen, Reynolds, Allard,
Cowperthwaite & Gelini,A Professional
Corporation
Attn: Cowperthwaite, John G.
1301 Marina Village Parkway
Order
Suite300
Alameda, CA 94501-1084
Gordon Rees ScullyMansukhani LLP
Attn: Pietrykowski, Michael J
1111 Broadway Street
Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94607__
BHC Law Group LLP,
Attn: Bergstrom, Emily D.
3900 Hollis Street,SuiteO
Emeryville, CA 94608
Riley SaferHolmes & Cancila LLP
Attn: Lee, Matthew E.
456 Montgomery Street,
16th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Berkes Crane Robinson & SealLLP
Attn: Spangler, Viju C
515 South Figueroa Street
Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 9007]
POND NORTH, LLP
Attn: Pond, Frank D.
355 South Grand Avenue
43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Order
Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall,
LLP
Attn: McCall. Michael T.
1 CityBoulevard West
FifthFloor
Orange, CA 92868-3677
Dentons US LLP
Attn: Oberg, Lisa L.
One Market Plaza, Spear Tower 24th
Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Lankford Crawford Moreno & Ostertag
Attn: Ostertag, James J
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd.
Suite600
Walnut Creek, CA 94596|
Buty & Curliano LLP
Attn: Buty, Madeline L
516 16thStreet
Oakland, CA 94612
DEMLER ARMSTRONG &
ROWLAND, LLP
Attn: Brydon, John R.
101 Montgomery Street
Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Order
Semper Law Group LLP
Attn: Tavera, Leonard M.
330 N. Brand Boulevard
Suite235
Glendale, CA 91203
--Third Party --
Spanos | Przetak
Attn: Przetak, Laura
475 14thStreet,Suite 550
Oakland, CA 94612__
Order
EXHIBIT C
Kazan, McClain, Satterley.Lyons, POND NORTH, LLP
Greenwood & Oberman Attn: Pond, Frank D.
Attn: Bost, Justin 355 South Grand Avenue
Jack London Market 43rd Floor
55 Harrison St.,Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90071__
Oakland, CA 94607
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
Rene C. Davidson Alameda County Courthouse
Runne No. RG20061377
Plaintiff/Petitioner(s)
Order
VS.
Demurrer
Amcord, INC. Sustained
Defendant/Respondent(s)
(Abbreviated
Title)
The Demurrer was setforhearing on 09/25/2020 at10:00 AM inDepartment 18 beforethe Honorable
Jo-Lynne Q. Lee. The Tentative Ruling was published and has not been contested.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The tentativerulingis affirmedas follows: Defendant Honeywell International,
Inc.'s("Defendant")
Demurrer toplaintiffsRobert Runne and CatherineRunne ("Plaintiffs")
Complaint's FourthCause of
Action for Fraud isSUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs
shallfileand serve aFirst
Amended Complaint no laterthan Friday,October 9,2020.
STANDARD OF LAW
"A demurrer teststhelegalsufficiencyof thefactual allegations
in a complaint." (Redfearn v.Trader
Joe'sCo. (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 989, 996.) The Court must determine "whether thecomplaint alleges
factssufficienttostatea cause of actionor disclosesa complete defense." (Id.)The court assumes "the
truthof theproperly pleaded factualallegations,factsthatreasonably can be inferredfrom those
expressly pleaded and mattersof which judicialnoticehas been taken." (Id.) "As ageneral rulein
testinga pleadingagainst a demurrer thefacts allegedinthe pleadingare deemed tobe true,however
Preview
* & David R. Ongaro (State Bar No. 154698) dongaro@ongarope.com Kirsten McNelly Bibbes (State Bar No. 276308) kbibbes@ongaropc.com LED Glen Turner (State Bar No. 212417) ALAMEDA COUNTY gturner@ongarope.com ONGARO PC OCT 29 290 1604 Union Street OLERK OF THE SUPERIOR San Francisco, CA 94123 COURT Telephone: (415) 433-3900 She. + ea gig Facsimile: (415) 433-3950 Attorneys for Defendant HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., f/k/a AlliedSignal Inc.,Successor-In-Interest to The Bendix Corporation 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 12 THO P. NGO and LISA T. TRAN, Case No. RG21113895 13 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF GLEN TURNER IN 14 SUPPORT OF HONEYWELL VS. INTERNATIONAL INC.’S DEMURRER 15 TO PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD 16 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Date: | December 3, 2021 17 et al., Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept.: 18 18 Defendants. Judge: Hon. Jo-Lynne Q. Lee 19 Reservation ID: 073731081560 20 Accompanying Documents: 21 1. Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer 2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities 22 Complaint Filed: September 27, 2021 23 24 25 26 FAX 27 28 BY DECLARATION OF GLEN TURNER ISO HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.’S DEMURRER a + 8 I,Glen Turner, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: l. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. | am counsel with the law firm of Ongaro PC, attorneys of record for defendant Honeywell International Inc., J/k/a AlliedSignal Inc.,successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation (“Honeywell”). The facts set forth are of my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify, I could and would do so competently. 2. On October 21, 2021, Honeywell and plaintiff's counsel, who have jointly litigated several demurrers on plaintiffs’ fraud counts by Honeywell over the last two years, emailed to meet and confer on dismissing the Third Cause of Action for Fraud. Because each party is well 10 aware of the other’s position, they agreed that more substantive meet and confer was not 11 necessary. Plaintiff did not agree to a dismissal. A true and correct copy of this email 12 correspondence isattached hereto as Exhibit A. 13 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B isa true and correct copy of the Court’s Order in 14 Reusser v.Honeywell International Inc., Alameda Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. RG20061330. 15 4, Attached hereto as Exhibit C isa true and correct copy of the Court’s Order in 16 Runne v. Amcord, Inc., Alameda Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. RG20061377. 17 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D isa true and correct copy of the Court’s Order in Hill 18 v.Johnson & Johnson, Alameda Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. RG21099490. 19 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E isa true and correct copy of the Court’s Order in 20 Helo v. Johnson & Johnson, Alameda Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. RG20064440. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 22 foregoing istrue and correct and of my personal knowledge, and executed inNorthport, Alabama 23 on October 29, 2021. Be 24 25 Glen Turner 26 27 28 l DECLARATION OF GLEN TURNER ISO HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.’S DEMURRER EXHIBIT A From: MartinNeira To: PeterHoefs Subject: RE:Ngo: Meet& ConferReHoneywellDemurrer Date: Thursday, October21,2021 1:15:40PM Attachments: ATT Lj Good afternoon Mr. Hoefs, Unfortunately |cannot agree to your proposal. Ifit wishes to, Honeywell may file ademurrer to Plaintiff'scause of action for fraud in this case too. Respectfully yours, Martin Neira Martin Neira | Associate Attorney Kazan, McClain, Satterley & Greenwood A Professional Law Corporation 55 Harrison, Suite 400, Oakland, CA 94607 T: (510) 302-1021 F: (510) 835-4913 From: Peter Hoefs Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 12:30 PM To: Martin Neira Subject: Ngo: Meet & Confer Re Honeywell Demurrer Mr. Neira, | writeto meet and confer with regarding plaintiffs’Third Cause of Actin for Fraud. Honeywell has demurred to this cause ofaction filedby your firm several times, most recently inthe Hillmatter. Each time, Honeywell’s demurrer has been sustained. To avoid any unnecessary motion practice, willplaintiffs’agree to dismiss thiscause of action? Ifyou wish to discuss further, |can be reached at the number below. Peter W. Hoefs ONGARO PC 1604 Union Street San Francisco,CA 94123 CellPhone: (415) 260-9429 - cy oefs@ongaropc.com EXHIBIT B Kazan, McClain, Satterley.Lyons, ONGARO Pc Greenwood & Oberman Attn: Tumer, Glen Attn: SatterleyEsq, Joseph D 1604 Union Street 55 Harrison Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94607 Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Rene C. Davidson Alameda County Courthouse Reusser No. RG20061330 Plaintifi/Petitioner(s) Order VS. Demurrer Honeywell International, Inc. Sustained Defendant/Respondent(s) (Abbreviated Title) The Demurrer was setforhearing on 09/25/2020 at 10:00AM inDepartment 18before theHonorable Jo-Lynne Q. Lee. The Tentative Ruling was published and has not been contested. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The tentativeruling1s affirmedas follows: Defendant Honeywell International,Inc.'s ("Defendant") Demurrer toplaintiffsKaren Reusser et al's("Plaintiffs") Complaint's Fourth Cause of Action forFraud isSUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs shallfileand servea FirstAmended Complaint no later than Friday, October 9, 2020. STANDARD OF LAW "A demurrer teststhelegalsufficiencyof thefactual allegationsina complaint." (Redfearn v.Trader Joe'sCo. (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 989, 996.) The Court must determine "whether the complaint alleges factssufficienttostatea cause of actionor disclosesa complete defense."(Id.)The courtassumes "the truthof theproperly pleaded factualallegations.factsthatreasonably can be inferredfrom those expressly pleaded and mattersof which judicialnoticehas been taken." (Id.) "As ageneral rulein testinga pleadingagainst a demurrer thefacts allegedinthe pleading aredeemed tobe true.however improbable they may be."unless the"complaint contains allegationsoffact inconsistent with attached documents, orallegationscontrary tofactswhich arejudiciallynoticed." (DelE. Webb Corp. v. StructuralMaterials Co, (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 593,604.) "The court does not,however, assume the truthof contentions,deductions orconclusions of law." (Aubry v.Tri-City Hosp. Dist.(1992) 2 Cal. 4th 962, 967.) Courts "give thecomplaint a reasonable interpretation, reading itasa whole and its parts intheircontext." (Goncharov v.Uber Techs.,Inc. (2018) 19 Cal.App. 5th 1157, 1165.) Courts "construe thecomplaint ‘liberally ...with aview to substantialjusticebetween the parties|.]'" (Id.) DEMURRER Defendant demurs to theComplaint's Fourth Cause ofAction for Fraud on threegrounds: (1) Plaintiffs' Fraud Cause of Action doesnot allegeuntruthful statementsspecificto Defendant; (2)Plaintiffs do not allegefacts sufficient to createa dutyto disclosefactsby Defendant toPlaintiffs' decedent, CarlH. Reusser ("Decedent"); and (3)Plaintiffs' Fraud Cause of Action isnot pleaded withsufficient particularity. (Notice of Motion atp. 2:9-24.) Plaintiffs' Complaint filedon 5/15/2020 allegesinrelevant part: Order ' @ e I. General Allegations. Decedent was exposed to asbestos-containingfrictionmaterialfrom 1951 to2009, when he worked on farms and various equipment "includingwork on asbestos-containing brakes,clutches,gaskets and other asbestos-containingparts."(Complaint's "General Allegations" at§ VI.) Also,General Allegations at§ V contain various allegationsasto the"stateof theart" and industrial knowledge of thedangers of asbestos. II. AllegationsSpecificto Defendant. PlaintiffsallegethatDefendant began marketing itsBendix asbestos-containing brakesin 1939, and untilat least1983 and allof Defendant's automotive breaks were 25 to50 percent asbestos by weight. (4th Cause of Action at§§ III(a)-(c).)Plaintiffs furtherallegethatby the 1944, Defendant had installed a ventilationsystem atitsmanufacturing facility inTroy, New York toassistin theremoval of dust from itsoperations,and offered dust masks to itsmixer operators. (Id.at§ IL]I(e).) Plaintiffs allege thatby the 1950s, Defendant implemented amedical monitoring program of employees atthat facility, includingannual chest X-rays. (Id.at § III(f).) Plaintiffs allege thatDefendant understood in the1950s and 1960s thatthe normal and intended use ofitsbrakes requiredthe removal of asbestos-containingcomponents. (Id.at §III(h).)In 1956, theNew York StateDepartment of Labor adopted regulationssettingthemaximum allowable concentration forairborne asbestoswhich applied toDefendant's Troy facility.(SIII(i).) PlaintiffsstatethatDefendant did not conduct air- sampling studies until1972, when itwas requiredto do soto comply with OSHA regulations. Those studiespurportedly showed thatthe asbestosdust counts exceeded thethen-mandated OSHA limits.(§ TII(qj).) Plaintiffs further allegethatdocuments produced by Defendant inprior discoverydemonstrated Defendant's knowledge ofthe hazards ofasbestos. (Id.at§ III(k).) Plaintiffs allege thatin 1966, Defendant's Directorof Purchases wrote a memorandum enclosinga copy of an article discussing the healthhazards of asbestos,including asbestosisand lung cancer. (§ III(I)-(m))He alsoallegedly acknowledged in amemorandum thatDefendant kept afileon thesubject ofasbestos and lung cancer since atleast1949. (§III(n).)Plaintiffsalsoallegevarious other sourcesof information regardingthe healthhazards of asbestos receivedby Defendant, including evidence linkingasbestosexposure to asbestosis,lung cancer,and mesothelioma. ($§ III(o)-(r).) By 1978, Defendant allegedlyknew thatasbestos exposure was harmful notonly tobrake mechanics but alsotheirfamily members at riskoftake-home exposure to asbestoscarried home on workers' clothing. (Id.at§ III(s).)Plaintiffs allegethatdespite thisknowledge, Defendant didnot placeany warnings on itspackaging forbrakes until1973, and did notplace any warnings about the risksof cancer until1986. ($§ III(t)-(v).) Plaintiffs furtherallegethat despiteknowledge ofthe healthhazards, Defendant continuedto market asbestos-containingbrake frictionliningsuntil2001. (§IL(Qw).) Plaintiffs further allegethatDefendant fraudulentlymarketed theirBendix brake linings by misleading consumers thatthe product was safein terms ofreducing the likelihoodoftrafficaccidents. (Id. at §§ ILI(x)-(cc).) PlaintiffsallegethatDefendant owed Decedent aduty to disclosefactsbecause itwas in arelationship with Decedent that gave risetoa duty todisclose thesefacts.(Id.at§ III(dd).)The Complaint alleges that Defendant marketed itsasbestos-containing brakesand brake components to "UAS" where Decedent worked as a salesman and hiscompensation was determined solelyby hisvolume ofsales and laterpurchased UAS. (Ibid.)However, Defendant pointsout thatthisportion ofthe Complaint appears to be lifted verbatim from the Complaint inanother asbestostortslawsuit. (Moving MPA atp. 2 atfn 1.) In theOpp MPA, Plaintiffsexclude onlythis allegationfrom theirsummary of theComplaint's allegations,stronglysuggesting thatDecedent did not,in fact,everwork foror purchase UAS. (Opp. MPA atpp. 6:8-10:16.) III.Collectiveallegationsagainstall"Automotive Defendants" The Complaint makes thefollowing allegationsagainstallAutomotive Defendants, jointly: Order Plaintiffsallegethat"each Defendant falselyrepresented thattheproducts those marketed, used, sold, supplied,or specifiedfor usewere nothazardous," thatthose misrepresentationswere made during plaintiff's power or exposure to asbestosfor which Defendants areresponsible,"and. pleadingin the disjunctive,thatthealleged misrepresentationwere made in oneof threepossible fashions,either directlytoDecedent, to a group of persons includingDecedent. or tothirdpartieswith the intention and expectation thatthesemisrepresentations would be repeated toDecedent. (Id.at p.21:16-23.) Plaintiffs allegethat cach automotive defendant eitherknew the representationswere falseor made them recklesslyand without regard forthe truth;thateach defendant intendedfor Decedent and/or thesame classof persons would relyon thosemisrepresentations; and thatDecedent's relianceon those misrepresentations was a substantialfactorinhis development of mesothelioma. (Id.at pp. 21:24-22:3.) Plaintiffs allege thatcach automotive defendant isliablefor fraudulentconcealment because "each defendant...stated that theirproducts could beused safely whileconcealing thatthey were in factlethal because they releasedasbestos fibers."(Id.atp. 22:5-11.) Plaintiffsallegethat"each Defendant (1)had exclusive knowledge ofmaterialfacts notknown to |Decedent] (as setforthabove), (ii) activelyconcealed these materialfacts from |Decedent],(iii) made partialrepresentationsbut alsosuppressed material facts,asset forthabove, and (iv)made factual representations,butdid not disclosefactsthatmaterially qualifiedthoserepresentations.Such nondisclosures includedDefendants representingtheirproducts were safe when used as intendedand as fitforthe particularpurpose forwhich theywere marketed, whilenot disclosingthatthese products contained asbestosthat would become airborne during theintended and/foreseeableuse ofthe products, rendering them dangerous and unfit fortheirintended purpose. (Id. at p.22:12-20.) Plaintiffsallegethateach defendant "enteredinto arelationshipand/or transactionwith [Decedent] sufficienttogive risetoa duty todisclose." Decedent "used or otherwise encountered Defendants products thatwere purchased eitherdirectlyfrom Defendants, Defendants’ authorizeddealer orsupplier, or any otherentityupon which Defendants derived a monetary benefit." (Id.atp. 22:21-27.) Plaintiffs allegethat Decadent did notknow the concealed facts, that "Defendants" intended todeceive Decedent by concealing them, thatDecedent would have behaved differently if theinformationhad been disclosed, and that "eachDefendant's concealment was a substantialfactorincausing [Decedent's]mesothelioma and death." (Id., pp. 22:28-23:8.) PlaintiffsallegethatDefendants were aware thattheirconspirators,which included allco-Defendants and others,planned to commit fraudulentmisrepresentation" or"fraudulentconcealment" that "Defendants agreed with theircoconspirators and intendedthat the[fraudulent misrepresentations/fraudulentconcealments] be committed," and that each Defendant'sparticipation" was asubstantialfactor incausing Decedent's harm. (Id.atp. 23:9-23.) The Complaint alsocontains general allegations that alldefendants owed Decedent a duty toabstain from injuringhis person, property or rightsand thatdefendants violatedtheirdutiesto Decedent. (Id.at pp.23:25-24:12.) IV. FINDINGS The elements of fraudulentmisrepresentation are:"a representation, usually of fact, which isfalse, knowledge ofitsfalsity,intent to defraud,justifiablerelianceupon the misrepresentation,and damage resultingfrom thatjustifiablereliance."(Stanfieldv.Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App. 3d 59,72-73.) "The required elements forfraudulent concealment are(1) concealment or suppression ofa material fact:(2) by adefendant with a dutyto disclosethe fact tothe plaintiff: (3)thedefendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact:(4)the plaintiff was unaware of the factand would not have acted ashe or she did if heor shehad known of theconcealed or suppressed fact:and (5) plaintiff sustaineddamage as a resultof the concealment or suppression ofthe fact." (Hambrick v.Healthcare PartnersMed. Grp.,Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App. 4th 124, 162.) Defendant contendsthat Plaintiffs failto allegefactswith therequisiteparticularity to support a fraudulent misrepresentationclaim. "Every element ofthe cause ofaction forfraud must be allegedin the propermanner and the factsconstitutingthefraud must be allegedwith sufficientspecificity to allow defendant tounderstand fullythe nature ofthe charge made." (Stanfield, supra, 220 Cal. App.3d at 73.) This "strict requirement" of pleading "necessitates pleading factswhich 'show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means therepresentationswere tendered."" (Id.)"The requirement of specificityina fraudaction againsta corporation requiresthe plaintiff toallegethe names ofthe Order persons who made the allegedlyfraudulent representations, theirauthorityto speak,to whom they spoke, what they saidor wrote, and when itwas saidor written."(Tarmann v. State FarmMut. Auto. Ins.Co. (1991) 2 Cal. App. 4th 153, 157.) Here, Plaintiffs have not pled amisrepresentation claim with therequired specificity. The onlyspecific affirmativerepresentationsDefendant isallegedto have made about itsasbestos-containingbrake parts isthat theywere betterat preventing traffic accidents thancheaper brake parts.These alleged representationscannot reasonably be read toconstituteaffirmativerepresentationsthat Defendant's asbestos-containingbrake parts could notcause cancer or otherasbestos-relateddiseases oradverse healthconditions. Further,theComplaint does not allegefactssufficienttoshow thatDefendant engaged ina deliberatescheme to deceivethe publicabout the possiblehealth consequences of working with itsasbestos-containingbrake parts,so as tomake thepresent case analogous todefendant cigarette manufacturers inWhitely v. PhilipMorris Inc.(2004) 117 Cal_-App.4th635, 681, citedin Plaintiffs’ Opp. MPA. Wherefore, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant's Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentation claim WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendant furtherassertsthatPlaintiffs have notalleged sufficient factsto establishDefendant'sduty to Decedent to maintain a cause ofaction forfraud by nondisclosure. However, thecourt does nothave to decide thefraudulent concealment issueat thistime,because the fourth causeof actionincludes an affirmativemisrepresentation claim againstDefendant and the court issustainingthe demurrer with leaveto amend as tothatclaim. Thus, even if the court determined thatPlaintiffscannot stateacause of action forfraud by non-disclosureas a matterof law, thiswould not dispose ofthe fourthcause of action entirely. Finally,Defendant attacksthesufficiency ofthe conspiracy claim.(Moving MPA atp. 15:1-9.) However, the Court declinestorule on thisportionof Defendants’ Demurrer because Defendant does not raisethisissuein itsNotice ofMotion. Further, "[s|tandingalone,a conspiracy does no harm and engenders no tortliability. Itmust be activatedby the commission ofan actual tort." (Applied Equipment Corp. v. LittonSaudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 511.) Because the Court has not yet determined whether Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a cause ofaction againstDefendant sounding in fraudulentmisrepresentationor fraudulent concealment, itisunnecessary forthe Court to consider Plaintiffs’ relatedconspiracy tocommit fraudulent misrepresentationor fraudulentconcealment claims. The Court notes,however, thatPlaintiffs' conspiracy claims appear to allegeonly legalconclusionswith no particularizedfactsallegedtending to show thatDefendant engaged in aconspiracy with anyone to commit a fraudulentact. (See Complaint at p.23:9-23.) Dated: 09/25/2020 LS ’ G ’ Facsimile Judge Jo-LynneQ. Lee Order SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: Reusser VS Honeywell International. Inc. RG20061330 ADDITIONAL ADDRESSEES Manning Gross + Massenberg LLP Attn: Cormier, JenniferA. 201 Spear St. 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Prindle,Goetz, Barnes & ReinholtzLLP Attn: Milbrodt, Jeremy D. 1340 Treat Blvd. Suite 120 Walnut Creek, CA 94597| Hassard Bonnington LLP Attn: Hartley, Edward E. 275 Battery St. Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94111-3941 Hugo Parker, LLP Attn: Hugo, Edward R. 240 Stockton Street 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Bennett, Samuelsen, Reynolds, Allard, Cowperthwaite & Gelini,A Professional Corporation Attn: Cowperthwaite, John G. 1301 Marina Village Parkway Order Suite300 Alameda, CA 94501-1084 Gordon Rees ScullyMansukhani LLP Attn: Pietrykowski, Michael J 1111 Broadway Street Suite 1700 Oakland, CA 94607__ BHC Law Group LLP, Attn: Bergstrom, Emily D. 3900 Hollis Street,SuiteO Emeryville, CA 94608 Riley SaferHolmes & Cancila LLP Attn: Lee, Matthew E. 456 Montgomery Street, 16th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Berkes Crane Robinson & SealLLP Attn: Spangler, Viju C 515 South Figueroa Street Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 9007] POND NORTH, LLP Attn: Pond, Frank D. 355 South Grand Avenue 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Order Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall, LLP Attn: McCall. Michael T. 1 CityBoulevard West FifthFloor Orange, CA 92868-3677 Dentons US LLP Attn: Oberg, Lisa L. One Market Plaza, Spear Tower 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Lankford Crawford Moreno & Ostertag Attn: Ostertag, James J 1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Suite600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596| Buty & Curliano LLP Attn: Buty, Madeline L 516 16thStreet Oakland, CA 94612 DEMLER ARMSTRONG & ROWLAND, LLP Attn: Brydon, John R. 101 Montgomery Street Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Order Semper Law Group LLP Attn: Tavera, Leonard M. 330 N. Brand Boulevard Suite235 Glendale, CA 91203 --Third Party -- Spanos | Przetak Attn: Przetak, Laura 475 14thStreet,Suite 550 Oakland, CA 94612__ Order EXHIBIT C Kazan, McClain, Satterley.Lyons, POND NORTH, LLP Greenwood & Oberman Attn: Pond, Frank D. Attn: Bost, Justin 355 South Grand Avenue Jack London Market 43rd Floor 55 Harrison St.,Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90071__ Oakland, CA 94607 Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Rene C. Davidson Alameda County Courthouse Runne No. RG20061377 Plaintiff/Petitioner(s) Order VS. Demurrer Amcord, INC. Sustained Defendant/Respondent(s) (Abbreviated Title) The Demurrer was setforhearing on 09/25/2020 at10:00 AM inDepartment 18 beforethe Honorable Jo-Lynne Q. Lee. The Tentative Ruling was published and has not been contested. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The tentativerulingis affirmedas follows: Defendant Honeywell International, Inc.'s("Defendant") Demurrer toplaintiffsRobert Runne and CatherineRunne ("Plaintiffs") Complaint's FourthCause of Action for Fraud isSUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs shallfileand serve aFirst Amended Complaint no laterthan Friday,October 9,2020. STANDARD OF LAW "A demurrer teststhelegalsufficiencyof thefactual allegations in a complaint." (Redfearn v.Trader Joe'sCo. (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 989, 996.) The Court must determine "whether thecomplaint alleges factssufficienttostatea cause of actionor disclosesa complete defense." (Id.)The court assumes "the truthof theproperly pleaded factualallegations,factsthatreasonably can be inferredfrom those expressly pleaded and mattersof which judicialnoticehas been taken." (Id.) "As ageneral rulein testinga pleadingagainst a demurrer thefacts allegedinthe pleadingare deemed tobe true,however