UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘Oo’ Case No. 2:21-cv-04909-CAS(RAOx): consolidated Date April 22, 2024 with 5:22-cv-01926-CAS(RAOx) Title MAG US LOUNGE MANAGEMENT LLC V. ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY ET AL; consolidated with ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY V. MAG US LOUNGE MANAGEMENT LLC ET AL
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang Laura Elias N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Adam Fox David Hubbard Proceedings: ZOOM HEARING RE: ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS “FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT” AND “FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION” CAUSES OF ACTION SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF MAG’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Dkt. 81, filed on MARCH 18, 2024) I. INTRODUCTION On June 16, 2021, plaintiff MAG US Lounge Management LLC (“MAG’) filed suit against defendant Ontario International Airport Authority (“OIAA”) for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing: and (3) declaratory relief. Dkt. 4. On July 19, 2021, OIAA filed a motion to dismiss MAG’s complaint for failure to state aclaim. Dkt. 9. OIAA’s motion to dismiss was denied as moot in light of an unrelated appeal, the background of which is known to the parties and set forth in the Court’s February 6, 2023 order denying MAG’s motion to dismiss OJAA’s complaint in a related and consolidated action. See 5:22-cv-01926-CAS-RAO, Dkt. 35. On January 12, 2023, OIAA renewed its July 2021 motion to dismiss MAG’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 39. On February 13, 2023, the Court denied OIAA’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. 51.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
1 MAG requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Ethics Policy Statement as displayed on OIAA’s website located at: https://www.flyontario.com/business- development/procurement/contracting. Dkt. 83. The Court finds that judicial notice of this public record is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. 2 MAG argues that OIAA failed to comply with Local Rule 7-3 because the conference between counsel occurred only five days, instead of seven days, before OIAA filed its motion to dismiss. Opp. at 9-10. In reply, OIAA asserts that it complied with the “meet and confer requirement” pursuant to Local Rule 7-3 and that MAG has not suffered any prejudice. Reply at 24-27. The Court finds that OIAA substantially complied with Local Rule 7-3. OIAA is admonished to follow the Local Rules in the future.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘Oo’ Case No. 2:21-cv-04909-CAS(RAOx): consolidated Date April 22, 2024 with 5:22-cv-01926-CAS(RAOx) Title MAG US LOUNGE MANAGEMENT LLC V. ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY ET AL; consolidated with ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY V. MAG US LOUNGE MANAGEMENT LLC ET AL
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang Laura Elias N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Adam Fox David Hubbard Proceedings: ZOOM HEARING RE: ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS “FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT” AND “FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION” CAUSES OF ACTION SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF MAG’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Dkt. 81, filed on MARCH 18, 2024) I. INTRODUCTION On June 16, 2021, plaintiff MAG US Lounge Management LLC (“MAG’) filed suit against defendant Ontario International Airport Authority (“OIAA”) for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing: and (3) declaratory relief. Dkt. 4. On July 19, 2021, OIAA filed a motion to dismiss MAG’s complaint for failure to state aclaim. Dkt. 9. OIAA’s motion to dismiss was denied as moot in light of an unrelated appeal, the background of which is known to the parties and set forth in the Court’s February 6, 2023 order denying MAG’s motion to dismiss OJAA’s complaint in a related and consolidated action. See 5:22-cv-01926-CAS-RAO, Dkt. 35. On January 12, 2023, OIAA renewed its July 2021 motion to dismiss MAG’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 39. On February 13, 2023, the Court denied OIAA’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. 51.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
1 MAG requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Ethics Policy Statement as displayed on OIAA’s website located at: https://www.flyontario.com/business- development/procurement/contracting. Dkt. 83. The Court finds that judicial notice of this public record is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. 2 MAG argues that OIAA failed to comply with Local Rule 7-3 because the conference between counsel occurred only five days, instead of seven days, before OIAA filed its motion to dismiss. Opp. at 9-10. In reply, OIAA asserts that it complied with the “meet and confer requirement” pursuant to Local Rule 7-3 and that MAG has not suffered any prejudice. Reply at 24-27. The Court finds that OIAA substantially complied with Local Rule 7-3. OIAA is admonished to follow the Local Rules in the future.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in a complaint. Under this Rule, a district court properly dismisses a claim if “there is a ‘lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.’” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “[F]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. In considering a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, as well as all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them. Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). The complaint must be read in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). However, “a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009): see Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[F]or a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory “factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.”). Ultimately, “TdJetermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Unless a court converts a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment, a court cannot consider material outside of the complaint (e.g., facts presented in briefs, affidavits, or discovery materials). In re American Cont’! Corp./Lincoln Sav. & Loan Sec. Litig., 102 F.3d 1524, 1537 (9th Cir. 1996), rev’d on other grounds sub nom Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998). A court may, however, consider exhibits submitted with or alleged in the complaint and matters that may be judicially noticed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. In re Silicon Graphics Inc. Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 986 (9th Cir. 1999); see Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL 875 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (explaining that a plaintiff “must allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation requirement” in the complaint) (citation omitted). Because MAG failed to comply with the Act, it may not assert its fraud claims in this action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS OJAA’s motion to dismiss MAG’s fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation claims for failure to comply with the Act, with leave to amend. 2. Immunity Pursuant to Government Code § 818.8 Even if MAG was excused from complying with the Act, MAG’s claims for fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation must nonetheless be dismissed because OIAA is immune from suit for fraud in circumstances such as these. OIAA argues that Government Code § 818.8 provides it—a public entity—with “absolute immunity against fraud claims arising out of commercial transactions or activities, including claims for fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation.” MTD at 13; see also Cal. Gov’t Code § 818.8 (“A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by misrepresentation by an employee of the public entity, whether or not such misrepresentation be negligent or intentional.”). According to OIAA, MAG’s fraud claims should be dismissed without leave to amend because they directly relate to commercial activities, “namely, the potential award of a car parking concession at the Ontario International Airport.” MTD at 14.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL 197 Cal. App. 3d 1335, 1346 (1988) (“The sections that follow [Section 815.6] provide specific immunities from this general rule of liability for mandatory duties, such as . . . section 818.8[.]’): see also Nuveen Mun. High Income Opportunity Fund v. City of Alameda, Cal., 730 F.3d 1111, 1126 (9th Cir. 2013) (“The commentary to [Section 815] accordingly explains that ‘the immunity provisions will as a general rule prevail over all sections imposing liability.*”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS OIJAA’s motion to dismiss MAG’s fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation claims as barred by Government Code § 818.8, with leave to amend. V. CONCLUSION In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS OJAA’s motion to dismiss MAG’s fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation claims in the FAC, with leave to amend. IT IS SO ORDERED. 00 : 26 Initials of Preparer CMJ