HOLDINGS: -The trial court improperly shifted the burden of production onto plaintiffs to support their causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the UCL. Although plaintiffs’ discovery responses may have been improper, they were not the equivalent of factually devoid responses; -Even assuming the trial court wrongly limited plaintiffs’ causes of action for negligence and intentional and negligent misrepresentation to acts that occurred after October 13, 2011, they failed to show how that error was relevant to those causes of action; -The trial court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ causes of action for intentional and negligent intentional misrepresentation. Plaintiffs never cited any evidence to support their claim that they suffered damages caused by defendant’s misrepresentations.
Nakase Law Firm answers what happens if I don’t fill out a w9
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.