 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Macchi v. Jackson2/26/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Plaintiff Ricardo Macchi appeals a judgment dismissing his complaint against defendants Janet Jackson, René Elizondo, Jr., The Puffy Trust, Todd F. Sadow, and Alan Metzger after the court sustained demurrers to the complaint. Macchi contends the complaint alleges valid causes of action for intentional misrepresentation, concealment, and unfair business practices and is not barred by the statute of limitations. We conclude that the complaint does not state a valid cause of action and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Macchi worked for Jackson and Elizondo as their personal chef and assistant. His employer was The Puffy Trust, a corporation in which Jackson and Elizondo allegedly were "principals and managing agents." Sadow and Metzger are physicians.
Macchi sued Jackson, Elizondo, The Puffy Trust, Sadow, and Metzger in August 1999 and filed a first amended complaint in October 1999 alleging various causes of action arising from an alleged scheme to obtain prescription drugs in Macchi's name for Jackson's or Elizondo's use. The defendants demurred and moved to strike portions of the first amended complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend as to several counts and with leave to amend as to other counts in January 2000.
Macchi filed a second amended complaint in February 2000 alleging causes of action against all defendants for intentional misrepresentation, concealment, and unfair business practices. He alleges that Sadow and Metzger prescribed drugs to "Ricardo Macchi" and "Chris Macchi," the drugs actually were intended for use by Jackson or Elizondo but were prescribed in Macchi's name to protect Jackson's and Elizondo's privacy, and Jackson directed Macchi to pick up the drugs from local pharmacies. Macchi alleges that Jackson told him that the drugs were being held "under his name," but did not inform him that the drugs were prescribed "in his name" or in the similar name of "Chris Macchi." He alleges that he picked up the drugs for over one year and did not discover that the drugs were prescribed in his name until April 1997 when he saw his name on a prescription drug bottle in the refrigerator.
The defendants demurred to the complaint arguing among other things that the complaint does not adequately allege the elements of intentional misrepresentation and concealment, that those counts actually allege a single cause of action for violation of privacy or personal injury that is barred by the one-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 340, subdivision (3), and that the complaint does not allege a business practice or allege sufficient facts to support the remedies available under the unfair competition law. Macchi opposed the demurrers.
The trial court concluded that the complaint does not allege damages caused by reliance on a misrepresentation or nondisclosure and that the fraud counts are mislabeled causes of action for invasion of privacy that are barred by the one-year statute of limitations. It concluded further that the only remedies available under the unfair competition law are injunctive relief and restitution, and that the complaint does not allege threatened or continuing harm as necessary to support an injunction and does not allege that the defendants obtained money or property from Macchi
Page 1 2 3 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|