Aqua Connect v. Code Rebel LLC et al

Filing 180

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 102 signed by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. (jre)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 Aqua Connect,
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

vs.

15 Code Rebel, LLC; Arben
Kryeziu; Volodymyr Bykov;
16 and DOES 1 through 10,
17
18
19
20

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV 11-5764 RSWL (MANx)
Statement of Conclusions
of Law Re: Defendants’
Motion for Summary
Judgment, or in the
Alternative for Summary
Adjudication [102]

After consideration of the papers and arguments in

21 support of and in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
22 Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative for Summary
23 Adjudication [102], this Court makes the following
24 conclusions of law.
25
26

27 ///
28 ///
1

1
2

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.

Under California law, “[a] person may not

3 ordinarily recover in tort for the breach of duties
4 that merely restate contractual obligations.”
5 Sup. Ct., 24 Cal.4th 627, 643 (2000).

Aas v.

“Courts will

6 generally enforce the breach of a contractual promise
7 through contract law, except when the actions that
8 constitute the breach violate a social policy that
9 merits the imposition of tort remedies.”

Stop Loss

10 Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. Brown & Toland Med. Grp., 143
11 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1041 (2006).

“Conduct amounting to

12 a breach of contract becomes tortious only when it also
13 violates a duty independent of the contract arising
14 from principles of tort law.”
15 Cal.4th 543, 551 (1999).
16

2.

Erlich v. Menezes, 21

Plaintiff’s false promise claim merely restates

17 its breach of contract claim.

Therefore Plaintiff’s

18 false promise claim is dismissed.
19

3.

“Generally, federal courts in California have

20 ruled that unjust enrichment is not an independent

21 cause of action because it is duplicative of relief
22 already available under various legal doctrines.”

See

23 Vicuna v. Alexia Foods, Inc., No. C 11-6119 PJH, slip
24 op. at *3 (N.D. Cal. April 27, 2012).
25
26
27

28 ///
2

1

4.

Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim seeks

2 damages of $10,000,000 that is duplicative of relief
3 available under its breach of contract and unfair
4 competition claims.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s unjust

5 enrichment claim is dismissed.
6

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 DATED: July 23, 2013
9

10
11

HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW
Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3