Corbrus, LLC v. 8th Bridge Capital, Inc.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15. The Court previously set out the factual and procedural background of this case in its April 20, 2020 order, dkt. (“MTD Order’), its May 4, 2020 order, dkt. 53 (“Arbitration Order”), and its July 27, 2020 order. Dkt. 70 (“MTD SAC Order’). For that reason, the Court only sets forth those facts necessary to resolve defendants David Paz (“Paz”), Omnia Group, Ltd., and Omnia Properties, LLC’s (collectively, “the Paz defendants”) motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff Corbrus, LLC (“Corbrus”) filed this action against the Paz defendants and a number of other defendants on November 30, 2019. Dkt. 1. Corbrus filed the operative second amended complaint on May 20, 2020, asserting a total of fifteen claims for relief. Dkt. 55 (“SAC”). The SAC asserts the following claims against the Paz defendants: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) fraudulent concealment; (3) negligent misrepresentation: (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) breach of contract; (6) breach of the implied covenant…