Seastrom v. California Lottery

JANET SEASTROM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA LOTTERY et al., Defendants and Respondents.

A131285

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

Dated: May 29, 2012

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Marin County

Super. Ct. No. CIV-1001509)

Plaintiff brings this appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer to her third amended complaint without leave to amend and dismissed all of plaintiff's causes of action against defendant California State Lottery (the Lottery). Plaintiff claims that she has properly alleged a cause of action for wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage, or may be able to cure any defects in her pleading by amendment. We conclude that plaintiff cannot state a cause of action against the Lottery, and affirm the judgment.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY¹

According to the pleading at issue before us, the first amended complaint, on February 11, 2009, at the "Quick N Easy" retail store in San Anselmo, plaintiff "selectedthe winning numbers for the SuperLottoPlus" game conducted by the Lottery. Plaintiff submitted the winning numbers on a data form into the SuperLottoPlus computer lottery network at the Quick N Easy store. Due to defects in the Lottery's electronic software and hardware supplied by its vendors, the computer system failed to accurately read or record plaintiff's winning numbers and generated an erroneously printed ticket that was delivered by the retailer to her. Plaintiff alleges that the "winning numbers" submitted by her are recorded and retained in "internal memory of the lottery computer network system." The Lottery refused to pay plaintiff the $7,000,000 SuperLottoPlus prize, "even though its data and metadata contained in its computer system" demonstrated that she "submitted the winning data."

The first amended complaint asserts causes of action against the Lottery and other named and fictitious defendants for abuse of elder or dependent adult, negligent design, manufacture and control of the Lottery's computer network, breach of contract, wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of warranty, and unfair business practices. ² As pertinent to this appeal, plaintiff's essential complaint is that the Lottery breached its duty of contract with her to accurately enter data into the SuperLottoPlus game computer system, and negligently supervised or controlled operation of the computer network of the SuperLottoPlus game to prevent errors that resulted in failure to pay her winning ticket.

The Lottery filed a general demurrer to the first amended complaint, on the ground that plaintiff failed to state facts sufficient to constitute any of the causes of action included in the pleading.³ Following a hearing on the demurrer on December 21, 2010, the trial court issued a ruling that sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action against the Lottery. This appeal followed.⁴

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's appeal focuses solely on the cause of action for wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage. She argues that "her existing First Amended Complaint contained a proper claim for interference with prospective economic advantage," that was neither referred to in the Lottery's demurrer nor ruled on by the trial court.⁵ Plaintiff claims that the "Lottery had a duty" to accurately retain her numbers, and damaged her "prospective [economic] advantage by failing to give her a ticket that matched the numbers written by plaintiff on her play slip." Her economic advantage was denied, plaintiff asserts, by the Lottery's failure to "match the written instructions" and grant her "the winning pari-mutuel payout for the Super Lotto Plus lottery." She further argues that if her first amended complaint was defective, the trial court erred by failing to grant her the opportunity to amend the pleading to "fine tune" the cause of action for "wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage."

We review the trial court's ruling on the demurrer in accordance with "well-settled principles." (Kaatz v. City of Seaside (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 13, 28; Tilbury Constructors, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 466, 471.) "A demurrer tests the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law; as such, it raises only a question of law." (Osornio v. Weingarten (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 304, 316.) " 'The reviewing court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. [Citations.] The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.] The judgment must be affirmed "if any one of the several grounds of demurrer is well taken. [Citations.]" [Citation.] However, it is error for a trial court to sustain a demurrer when the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory.[Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Bagatti v. Department of Rehabilitation (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 344, 352; see also Lee v. Blue Shield of California (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1377-1378.)

The properly pleaded material allegations in the action filed by plaintiff "must be accepted as true. [Citations.] In addition, the Supreme Court has held: ' "[T]he allegations of the complaint must be liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties." [Citations.]' [Citations.]" (C.J.L. Construction, Inc. v. Universal Plumbing (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 376, 382-383.) "In addition to the complaint's allegations, we consider matters that must or may be judicially noticed. [Citations.] We also consider the complaint's exhibits. [Citations.] Under the doctrine of truthful pleading, the courts 'will not close their eyes to situations where a complaint contains allegations of fact inconsistent with attached documents, or allegations contrary to facts which are judicially noticed.' [Citation.] 'False allegations of fact, inconsistent with annexed documentary exhibits [citation] or contrary to facts judicially noticed [citation], may be disregarded . . . .' [Citations.]" (Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 390, 400; see also Banis Restaurant Design, Inc. v. Serrano (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1044-1045.)

Our task as a "reviewing court, therefore, 'is to determine whether the pleaded facts state a cause of action on any available legal theory.' [Citation.]" (Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 257, 266.) "If the complaint states a cause of action under any theory, regardless of the title under which the factual basis for relief is stated, that aspect of the complaint is good against a demurrer." (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38.) However, "We may affirm a trial court judgment on any basis presented by the record whether or not relied upon by the trial court." (State of California ex rel. Metz v. CCC Information Services, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 402, 412.)

"On appeal from a judgment of dismissal after a demurrer has been sustained without leave to amend, the plaintiff has the burden of proving error. [Citation.] 'Because the trial court's determination is made as a matter of law, we review the rulingde novo.' [Citation.]" (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.)

I. The Cause of Action for Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage.

We examine plaintiff's cause of action for wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage. "[T]he law is settled that 'a stranger to a contract may be liable in tort' " for wrongfully " 'interfering with the performance of the contract.' [Citations.]" (Reeves v. Hanlon (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1140, 1148.) " 'The tort of intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic advantage imposes liability for improper methods of disrupting or diverting the business relationship of another which fall outside the boundaries of fair competition.' [Citation.]" (San Jose Construction, Inc. v. S.B.C.C., Inc. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1528, 1544.) The elements plaintiff must plead and prove to prevail on her cause of action for wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage are: "(1) an economic relationship between plaintiff and a third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) defendant's knowledge of the relationship;" (3) a wrongful act by the defendant either designed to or that is reasonably foreseeable to interfere with plaintiff's economic relationship; "(4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the defendant's wrongful act, including an intentional act by the defendant that is designed to disrupt the relationship between the plaintiff and a third party." (Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, 944; Reeves, supra, at p. 1148; Plummer v. Day/Eisenberg, LLP (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 38, 51.)⁶

We first observe that in her first amended complaint plaintiff has improperly merged theories of breach of contract and wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage. The theories are mutually exclusive. A party to a contract cannot be liable under any tort claim for interference with contractual rights or expectancies if the defendant is a party to the contract; the plaintiff is relegated to a cause of action forbreach of that contract. (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 513, 517-518; Woods, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th 344, 350.) We treat the cause of action as one solely for wrongful interference with prospective...